Posts Tagged ‘Tom VanAndwerp’

Tax Roundup, 3/8/16: Getting robbed, and again. And: IRS allows retroactive WOTC certification for 2015.

Tuesday, March 8th, 2016 by Joe Kristan

walnutstreet20160308It’s not enough to get robbed; you have to time it right. A “pump-and-dump” securities fraud victim claimed a theft loss deduction. The IRS said “yep, you were robbed.” But they also said that they didn’t time their robbery deduction properly, and therefore were out of luck. And, it turns out, they were.

Court of Federal Claims Judge Sweeney explains (my emphasis, citations and footnotes omitted):

There is no dispute that plaintiffs discovered the theft loss in 2002.31 And, neither plaintiffs nor defendant disputes that in 2002, there existed “a claim for reimbursement with respect to which there [was] a reasonable prospect of recovery Plaintiffs filed their arbitration claim against Donald & Co., Mr. Stetson, Mr. Volman, and Mr. Ingrassia in February 2002, and by the end of that year, they had neither sought to adjourn the proceedings nor withdrawn their claim. Accordingly, in light of the ongoing arbitration proceedings, plaintiffs could not claim a theft loss deduction in 2002. Instead, they were required to delay their deduction until the “year in which it [could] be ascertained with reasonable certainty whether or not” they would receive reimbursement of their losses from their arbitration claim. Plaintiffs determined that the proper year to claim their theft loss was 2004, and filed amended federal income tax returns reflecting the deduction. The IRS disallowed plaintiffs’ refund claim, and takes the position in this litigation that 2004 was not the proper year for plaintiffs to claim their theft loss deduction.

The court said the victims didn’t prove that they were entitled to the deduction:

Plaintiffs claim that they sustained the loss in 2004 because by the end of that year, they had no reasonable prospect of recovering on their arbitration claim. However, under the factual circumstances presented in this case, the test is not whether plaintiffs had a reasonable prospect of recovering on their arbitration claim in 2004, but is instead whether, in 2004, plaintiffs could have ascertained with reasonable certainty that they would not recover on their arbitration claim. To satisfy their burden under the latter test, plaintiffs were required to produce objective evidence that they abandoned their arbitration claim in 2004. They failed to do so. In the absence of such evidence, plaintiffs are not entitled to a theft loss deduction for the 2004 tax year.

The opinion doesn’t say whether the victims filed protective refund claims for subsequent years to preserve their refund rights. It would be another robbery if they were unable to get their theft loss deduction because they got the year right. The statute in such cases should allow taxpayers to recover in the proper year if the IRS successfully second-guesses the timing of a theft loss.

The Moral? If you are a fraud or theft victim, the timing of the loss deduction is very important. If the IRS disputes the loss on examination, be sure to file protective refund claims for open years to protect your rights.

Cite: Adkins, Ct. Fed. Claims No. 10-851T.

 

Speaking of getting robbed twice: IRS shuts down ID-thief assistance portal. A week after The Tax Foundation pointed out that the IRS IP-PIN online portal made identity theft victims vulnerable to being victimized a second time, the IRS has temporarily shut it down:

As part of its ongoing security review, the Internal Revenue Service temporarily suspended the Identity Protection PIN tool on IRS.gov. The IRS is conducting a further review of the application that allows taxpayers to retrieve their IP PINs online and is looking at further strengthening the security features on the tool.

Nothing to see here, move along.

 

Work Opportunity Credit guidance updated for retroactive 2015 credits. Congress re-enacted the expired Work Opportunity Tax Credit retroactively for 2015. To claim the credit for hiring certain classes of hard to employ workers, employers have to get the employee eligibility verified within 28 days. As this was impossible for an expired credit, the IRS yesterday gave employers until June 29 of this year to get the certification for 2015 hires (Notice 2016-22)

 

20160308-1

 

Russ Fox, What Part of “Permanent Injunction” Didn’t You Understand? “Mr. Herrera is being held at ClubFed until he closes his business and complies with the injunction.” That should do it.

TaxGrrrl, Understanding Your Tax Forms 2016: 1099-B, Proceeds From Broker & Barter Exchange Transactions

William Perez, How to Mail Tax Returns to the Internal Revenue Service

Keith Fogg, Making Claims and Spending Refunds in Bankruptcy. “The 9th Circuit recently affirmed the district court opinion granting summary judgment to the IRS in a case brought by Mr. Stanley Burrell aka M C Hammer seeking to equitably estop the IRS from collecting on taxes for two years which it failed to include on the proof of claim in his bankruptcy case.”

Jack Townsend, Proposed FinCEN Rulemaking for Rules on FBAR Reporting for Financial Professionals

 

Tony Nitti, Would Hillary Clinton’s Tax Plan Kill The Incentive Stock Option?. Actually, AMT has done that pretty well already.

Robert Wood, President Hillary Won’t Cut Tax Deductions To Charities Like Clinton Foundation. Of course not.

Peter Reilly, Chasm Of Class And Privilege – Clinton Tax Plan Hits Top 1% – Sanders Plan Hits Top 5%. “What I find really interesting is the way in which the proposals reflect the difference in the Sanders and Clinton constituencies.”

Kay Bell, Trump is last holdout as Kasich releases tax returns

 

Jason Dinesen, 6 Things You Might Not Know About Enrolled Agents. “2. We Don’t Work for the IRS

 

20160308-2

 

Renu Zaretsky, Budget Chaos, Tax Breaks, Loopholes, and Incentives. Today’s TaxVox headline roundup covers EU tax investigations of multinationals, IRS tax investigations of multinationals, and scoundrels “patriotic millionaires” against carried interests.

TaxProf, The IRS Scandal, Day 1034

Stuart Gibson, Competition Policy and Tax Policy in The Twilight Zone (Tax Analysts Blog). “From a tax perspective in the U.S. (and probably Europe), this is simply a garden-variety case of a taxpayer negotiating a good deal with a foreign tax authority. From a European competition perspective, the answer is a bit more complicated.”

 

News from the Profession. Why Accountants Suck at Marketing (Blake Oliver, Going Concern)

 

Share

Tax Roundup, 5/21/14: Practitioner Pitchforks and Torches edition. And: math remains hard!

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 by Joe Kristan

20140521-1The new identification rules for remote signatures aren’t going over well.   (See update below.)  At a CPE event yesterday former IRS Stakeholder Liaison Kristy Maitre outlined the new e-filing identity match requirement we are supposed to meet (now!  for extended 2013 returns!).  These include “third-party verification” of identities of our long-time clients if they don’t visit the office.  The ones that visit, we only need to see their papers.

The 250 or so practitioners present didn’t appreciate the joke at all.  They asked the obvious question: how do we even comply with this?  It’s not at all clear how we get “third-party verification.”  I can pretty much guarantee that nobody is complying with that requirement now, because few are aware of it, and the ones that are don’t know where to start.

While the requirements are supposed to be part of the IRS war against identity theft, this effort is like responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor by bombing Montreal.  Identity thieves don’t waltz into tax prep offices and pay us to prepare fraudulent refund claims.  They prefer TurboTax.

Yet, there may be a method to the madness, suggested by one practitioner.  What if some outfit is gearing up to provide third-party verification services — say, one of the national tax prep franchises?  And the IRS has quietly created their revenue stream with this absurd rule?  You might say this preparer is cynical; I say he’s been paying attention.

So let’s fight.  Kristy is collecting comments and questions to send to her erstwhile IRS colleagues to try to stop this nonsense.  Send your comments to ksmaitre@iastate.edu.  I believe the IRS will back off if we brandish the electronic torches and pitchforks.

Update, 11:30 a.m.  I received a call from an IRS representative this morning saying that they have been getting phone calls as a result of this post (well-done, readers!).  She tried to reassure me by telling me that the third-party verification doesn’t apply to in-person visits.  I knew that.  I told her that as I read the rules, there are either “in-person” or “remote” transactions, with no third category of, say, “I’ve worked with this client for many years and they’re fine.” She didn’t disagree, though she still thinks I’m overreacting.  She did say IRS field personnel are  “elevating” the issue and seeking “clarification” from the authors of these new rules, including what “authentication” means for in-person visits and what a “remote transaction” is that would require third-party verification.  Keep it up, folks!

Related:

Russ Fox, Yes, Mom, I Need to See Your ID

Jana Luttenegger, Updated E-Filing Requirements for Tax Preparers

Jason Dinesen, Hold the Phone on the IRS E-file Outrage Machine 

Me, Welcome back, loyal client. IRS says I have to verify that you aren’t a shape-shifting alien.

 


20140521-2TaxProf, 
The IRS Scandal, Day 377.

News from the Profession.  Crocodile Injured By Falling Circus Accountant in Freak Bus Accident (Going Concern)

Kay Bell, National Taxpayer Advocate joins fight to stop private debt collection of delinquent tax bills.  I’d rather she fight to keep the IRS from implementing its ridiculous e-file verification rules.

TaxGrrrl, Congress, Ignoring History, Considers Turning Over Tax Debts To Private Collection Agencies

Jim Maule, It Seems So Simple, But It’s Tax.  “People are increasingly aware that the chances of getting away with tax fraud are getting better each day.”

Missouri Tax Guy,  NO! The IRS did not call you first.

 

Tax Justice Blog, Legislation Introduced to Stop American Corporations from Pretending to Be Foreign Companies.  How about we just stop taxing them?

Kyle Pomerleau, Tom VanAntwerp, Interactive Map: Where do U.S. Multinational Corporations Report Foreign Taxable Income and Foreign Income Taxes Paid? (TaxPolicy Blog).  Holland does well, as does Canada.

Howard Gleckman, Tax Chauvinism: Who Cares Where a Firm is Incorporated?

So we are left with a sort of financial chauvinism. It is important to some politicians to be able to say that a company is a red-blooded American company. But when it comes to multinational firms in a global economy, why does that matter? 

Because, ‘Merica!

 

Andrew Mitchel now has some online tax quizzes for your amusement.  If they are too tough, the next item might restore your self-esteem.

 

20120905-1If you can’t answer these questions, taxes are the least of your problems.  Tackle these quizzlers (via Alex Taborrok):

1. Suppose you had $100 in a savings account and the interest rate was 2% per year. After 5 years, how much do you think you would have in the account if you left the money to grow.

More than $102. Exactly $102,. Less than $102? Do not know. Refuse to answer.

2. Imagine that the interest rate on your savings account was 1% per year and inflation was 2% per year. After 1 year, would you be able to buy.

More than, exactly the same as, or less than today with the money in this account? Do not know. Refuse to answer.

3. Do you think that the following statement is true or false? ‘Buying a single company stock usually provides a safer return than a stock mutual fund.’

T. F. Do not know. Refuse to answer.

I won’t give away the answers, but I shouldn’t have to.  Sadly, most people find these questions hard.  From Alex Taborrok:

Only about a third of Americans answer all three questions correctly (and that figure is inflated somewhat due to guessing). The Germans and Swiss do significantly better (~50% all 3 correct) on very similar questions but many other countries do much worse. In New Zealand only 24% answer all 3 questions correctly and in Russia it’s less than 5%.

At least that helps explain Vladimir Putin’s popularity.

 

Share