Tax Update Blog: January 2006 Archives
« Previous · Tax Update Blog Home · Next »
IOWA'S SUPER-LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS DEDUCTION: IF YOU QUIT, DON'T WAIT TOO LONG TO RETIRE
January 31, 2006
Iowa has an unusual tax exemption for certain business capital gains. It applies if you meet two conditions:
- You "held" the property for ten years, and
- You "materially participated" in the business owning the property for 10 years.
If you miss either requirement, you lose the exemption.
For the most part, "material participation" means the same thing as it does for the federal "passivie activity" rules. This usually means 500 hours of work each year (a more complete summary is in the extended entry below).
POST-RETIREMENT PARTICIPATION
When you retire, your participation lingers under the federal rules. For most businesses, you are considered to materially participate if you have done so for five of the past ten years. This means your participation "continues" for five years after retirement. For professional service businesses, participation continues until death, even after retirement (no "of counsel" jokes allowed).
Iowa follows these rules for non-farmers. That means you have five years to sell your business property after retirement to qualify for the Iowa exclusion.
RETIRE A FARMER, DIE A FARMER
Farmers, though, get a special Iowa break. They qualify for the deduction for any property in which they materially participated for five out of eight years before "retiring" -- whatever that means. That usually works out well for farmers, because they can retire, cash rent their land, and still qualify for the deduction ten years later when they finally pack up and move to Sun City.
The key question, though, is when "retirement" occurs. A policy letter issued this month shows that the Department of Revenue doesn't necessarily equate "quitting" with "retiring." The letter has a spare fact summary:
The situation posed in your letter involves 100 acres of farmland which has been jointly owned by a husband and wife since 1974. The husband materially participated in the farming operation, and the wife actively participated with the husband in the farming operation. The husband also owned a dairy operation and used the crops from the 100 acres of farmland to help support the dairy operation. The dairy operation was liquidated in March 1993, and the 100 acres of farmland was been cash rented since 1993. The husband and wife retired and began receiving social security benefits in 1997.
The husband and wife are now planning to sell the 100 acres of farmland, and are requesting an opinion on whether the capital gain from the sale of the farmland would qualify for the capital gain deduction.
The letter ruled that the couple failed to qualify because they hadn't materially participated "the farmland" in five of the eight years before "retirement." They said retirement didn't occur until June 1997 when the couple started receiving social security benefits, and that 1992 was the last year of "material participation." since they had failed to participate in the last four-plus years before "retirement," the letter holds, they failed the "five of eight" year test.
PROBLEMS WITH THE RULING
The first problem that leaps out is technical: the statement that the couple didn't participate in the activity in 1993, the year they liquidated the herd. I believe this is exactly the type of situation that the "facts and circumstances" test of the material participation rules is meant to cover - years in which the taxpayers still were in the business, but not for long enough in the year to reach 500 hours of work. The letter anticipates it by saying the taxpayer wouldn't have qualified anyway, because the July 1997 start of Social Security benefits was more than four years after the March 1993 liquidation.
The second problem is key to the ruling: the Department considers the dairy business to be a separate business from the remaining business that apparently continued until 1997. The Department doesn't say why this is so. Did the farmers report dairy income as a separate Schedule F activity?
Finally, The regulation covering "material participation" doesn't define "retirement" anywhere. I suspect that the couple considered themselves "retired" from the dairy operation when the truck drove off with the last cow. It's unfortunate that the meaning of the key term "retirement" is left to the chance whims of the Department.
Cite: Policy Letter of January 6, 2006.
Link • Iowa Tax Law Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
SNAKE EYES
January 31, 2006
Russ Fox of Taxable Talk tells us about a man whose hot streak on the riverboats went ice-cold when he didn't report his gambling income.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
QUOTES OF THE DAY
January 31, 2006
Much wisdom here:
"If we don't change Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, we're gonna raise taxes," he said. "It doesn't matter if you're a Republican, Democrat, or Martian. They're going up. You just can't avoid it."
and
"I think the problem is spending, so let's start with the spending side." (
Douglas Holt-Eakin, former Congressional Budget Office Director, in an interview with Tax Analysts. The second quote was in the context of the future of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. ($).
Link • QUOTATIONS Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
LAST JANUARY 2006 CARNIVALS EVER
January 30, 2006
The current editions of the Carnival of the Capitalists and the Carnival of Personal Finance are up.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
KELO, EMINENT DOMAIN, AND TAX BREAKS
January 30, 2006
Income tax rules might be a hidden snag in efforts to prevent municipalities from condemning property on behalf of private developers. Since the Supreme Court ruled last year in Kelo that such municpal condemnations are constitutional, efforts have sprung up to trim back such governmental powers.
The Des Moines Register printed a piece yesterday that pretty much said downtown Des Moines would be a tumbleweed-strewn wasteland without the ability of the city to condemn land for private purposes. The piece was run to oppose an anti-Kelo bill in the Iowa legislature.
SECTION 1033: TAX BREAK FOR THE CONDEMNED
It's unlikely that Principal or Wells-Fargo would have failed to assemble parcels needed for their new downtown buildings without the muscle of the City Council backing up their efforts. Yet the existence of a threat of condemnation carries tax breaks for sellers that probably enabled the property buyers to assemble their properties at a lower cost than they would have otherwise.
Section 1033 of the federal tax code allows sellers to avoid gain on property sold "under threat or imminence" of condemnation, as long as they re-invest the proceeds no more than two years after the year in which the sale is made. It's not necessary for the city to actually institute condemnation proceedings; just a credible threat triggers the tax break. The Tax Court has stated the rules so:
A “threat of condemnation” exists if (1) the body threatening condemnation possesses the power of eminent domain, (2) the property owner is told by an official of the threatening body that condemnation will be sought unless the owner negotiates a sale or exchange of the property, and (3) the information conveyed to the owner gives the owner reasonable grounds to believe that the threat was authorized and likely to be carried out unless a sale or exchange is arranged.…
A whiff of a threat of condemnation can make a sale tax-free to a buyer who is willing to reinvest in other property somewhere. A seller and buyer can more or less arrange a condemnation "threat" with the city to qualify a property for Section 1033. While I'm not privy to the Principal and Wells-Fargo land purchases cited by the Register, I would be surprised if Section 1033 wasn't an important part of the mix.
In theory, the buyers can arrange for similar tax results using a Section 1031 "like-kind exchange." These are more difficult to pull off, though, because there is only a six-month window to reinvest proceeds, and a Section 1031 deal has to meet a long list of fussy technical requirements.
I believe Kelo is bad law and bad policy (I include here my standard disclaimer that I speak for myself, not the firm). It still amounts to a way for the well-connected to get a better deal than the little guy in their property purchases. But efforts to overturn Kelo in the legislature may run into resistance from a surprising quarter: potential sellers of property who could use a whiff of condemnation to make their property sales tax-free.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
GIVE US YOUR OLD, YOUR CREAKY, YOUR BINGO PLAYERS...
January 30, 2006
David Brunori, a tax professor who moonlights for Tax Analysts as a commentator on state tax issues, is unimpressed by efforts to exempt retirement income from Iowa taxes. Unfortunately the article is behind the Tax Analysts subscriber firewall, but here are some tidbits:
There is a movement afoot to eliminate the Iowa income tax on Social Security and pension income. The plan is being pushed by Republican lawmakers and is driven in part by the belief that retirees leave the state to avoid taxes. It is also driven in part by the lawmakers' desire to appease senior citizens, who tend to vote more than the rest of us. The plan would cost about $250 million a year -- approximately the same amount as the current deficit.
Iowa doesn't have enough old people. We're only the fourth oldest state in the country. We won't rest until we shuffle past Florida. Though we might have to stop for a couple of catnaps, and to take some meds.
There is no reason to broadly exempt all pension and Social Security income. Such an exemption runs counter to the notion that we should have a broad base and low rates. (Everybody else, specifically young people, will pay more because of this.) Then there is the question of granting exemptions to rich old people. Many wealthy elderly people collect pensions and Social Security. Many are millionaires. Why offer an exemption to the rich? But maybe -- and this is my cynical side talking -- it's because the rich elderly vote more than the poor elderly.
Yes, subsidizing the elderly wealthy on the backs of the rest of us is just the ticket to keeping our youth from fleeing the state...
I spoke with a couple of legislators who maintain that retirees are fleeing the state to avoid high income taxes. No one wants grandma to move to Florida because she can't pay her taxes. But this justification is not grounded in reality. Prof. Peter Fisher of the University of Iowa, who, by the way, is a very smart guy, recently conducted a study that showed that only 0.07 percent of Iowans age 65 and older left the state each year between 1995 and 2000. Two-thirds of those who left headed for states with the same or higher income taxes on pensions and Social Security. And more senior citizens moved from Illinois -- which does not tax pensions -- to Iowa during that time!
But think of how many more old people we could get with lower retirement taxes. Besides, somebody has to be here to play all those slot machines video lottery terminals.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
WILL GLENN REYNOLDS BE AT THE IOWA BLOGGER BASH?
January 27, 2006
Well, no. But you can be! Two one weeks (See comment. I should never post on Friday night) from tonight at the Raccoon River Brewing Company, 10th and Mulberry in glamorous downtown Des Moines! (February 4) The fun starts at 7:00 or so. Food, beer, free wi-fi, and the most glamorous group of bloggers ever to assemble in Polk County. Bloggers, friends, groupies, or just fans - hope to see you there!
PS: Glenn can come too. His first beer is free, indeed.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
NEW IOWA 'HOLDING PERIOD' PROPOSAL
January 27, 2006
A new bill in the Iowa Senate, SSB 3046, would require Iowa to follow federal tax rules in determining how long an asset has been "held."
This is important for taxpayers trying to qualify for the Iowa exclusion for capital gains on business property that has been "held" for at least ten years. The Department of Revenue has made up its own holding period rules based on a chain of reasoning stemming from (I'm not making this up) a misreading of an old CCH "Master Tax Guide."
The bill would apply for determining the holding period of property sold starting January 1, 2006 and retroactively to tax years ending after January 1, 2006.
There are many policy reasons against this capital gain exclusion in the first place, but if it is to exist, it should at least be easy to apply. Under the current Department of Revenue interpretation, like-kind exchanges and involuntary conversions of business property start a new holding period; under federal law, the holding period of teheexchanged property (or converted property) "tacks" to the property acquired to replace it. Taxpayers shouldn't have to deal with a separate unclear set of holding period rules based on the whim of state tax collectors.
While the proposed rules are fine as far as they go, they should be expanded to cover all open tax years. The Department's application of the rules up to now is wrong, and SSB 3046 should say so. The 2006 effective date is likely to embolden the Department to continue to defend its old holding period stance for examinations of pre-2006 tax years. At the very least, the explanation of the bill should say that the provision is a "clarification" of existing rules.
Link • Eye on the Legislature ~ • Iowa Tax Law Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
THAT EXPLAINS WHY MINNESOTANS CAN FILE 1040s
January 27, 2006
The Tax Court has ruled that Antarctica isn't a "foreign country" for purposes of claiming the foreign earned income exclusion.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
GRASSLEY: THERE WILL BE NO ESTATE TAX REPEAL
January 27, 2006
The TaxProf Blog points to an interview with Bloomberg News where Senator Grassley gives up on permanent estate tax repeal:
Congressional Republicans don't have enough votes to extend a repeal of the estate tax beyond 2010 and may have to settle for a compromise that limits the levy to bequests of more than $5 million, Senator Charles Grassley said. "If we could get a $5 million exemption with a 15 percent rate, I think that would be a decent compromise," Grassley, an Iowa Republican who heads the finance committee, said in an interview in Davos, Switzerland, where he is attending the World Economic Forum. "That's not going to satisfy the president, but I think that that's the best I can do in the United States Senate in order to get the votes to get it passed."
If he thinks that's a "decent" compromise, expect a lower exemption and/or a higher rate.
(Unfortunately, the TaxProf's link doesn't go to the interview, and I can't find a link to the full Bloomberg article).
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
THERE ARE NO TAX CRIMINALS?
January 27, 2006
A blogging attorney has an interesting view of the tax law, at least as applied to his fellow lawyers. He apparently thinks that there is no such thing as a tax crime:
This article about the IRS prosecuting lawyers who come up with tax shelters did more than strike me. It's just plain wrong...
Sure, there's another way to look at it: the lawyers actually did something illegal that was precluded by the code, and they should be punished. As you can see just from these paragraphs, however, there's no such thing as black and white in the Internal Revenue Service code. To prove that, all you have to do is look up section 61 that defines income and see what a mess the whole thing starts with.
It could be exciting to hire this man to do tax planning; a judge might not share his view that there is no such thing as a tax crime.
Of course the tax law is far too complicated. Still, there are some things that are black and white. Richard Hatch's jury didn't think the tax law was too unclear to return a conviction.
A search of this attorney's site shows he hasn't objected to accountants being indicted for tax crimes. It appears, then, that he's making a more parochial argument that attorneys shouldn't face tax prosecution because they can cloak their crimes in complexity. I guess that just means crooked accountants should get a J.D.
Hat tip: The TaxProf Blog
UPDATE: Dr. Maule is similarly unimpressed.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
INSURERS SCHEME TO LOSE BUSINESS?
January 27, 2006
Senator Durbin is criticizing the Administration's forthcoming proposal to expand health savings accounts. Tax Analysts ($) reports:
Durbin described HSAs as "another special-interest project for insurers disguised as a plan for covering the uninsured," and Pelosi said the accounts demonstrate "a continuing effort on the part of the Bush administration to leave more Americans to fend for themselves."
HSAs were created to allow taxpayers with high-deductible health insurance to establish tax-free accounts for medical expenses, and President Bush has previously stated that he will continue to push Congress to make HSAs "more attractive, more portable, more individualized."
However, Durbin cited a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that he said concluded that the president's proposed expansion of HSAs "would actually increase the number of uninsured Americans by 350,000 and cost taxpayers $25 billion."
So it's a "special interest project for insurers" that will chase away 350,000 of their customers. If so, the insurance industry is both evil and insane. Somebody better tell the regulators...
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
TAX COURT OVERTURNS REGULATION ON LATE-FILED FOREIGN CORPORATE RETURNS
January 26, 2006
The Tax Court today overturned a treasury regulation disallowing the deductions of foreign corporations who file their returns late. The decision was the second split regular decision in two weeks.
The case involves a real estate holding company that didn't get around to filing its return for its May 31, 1993 fiscal year until July 1999. It filed its returns without prompting from the IRS. The IRS, relying on its regulation under Code Sec. 882(c), said that the late filing precluded all deductions, so the corporations would be taxable on their gross income.
The courts had ruled against the IRS on prior versions of this regulation. The IRS argued that other law changes made the prior court decisions obsolete. The Tax Court opinion reviews legislation and court decisions going back to 1928 and concludes that the IRS is still wrong on this issue. Fourteen judges sided with the taxpayers, while four judges sided with the IRS in two separate dissents.
The IRS will almost certainly appeal the case, so don't get careless in filing your foreign company U.S. returns just yet; and if you don't file until the IRS contacts you, your deductions are still toast.
Cite: Swallows Holding, LTD, 126 T.C. No. 6.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
RICHARD HATCH: NOT A MODEL OF TAX PLANNING
January 26, 2006
Russ Fox has the best summary I've yet seen of the Richard Hatch tax saga over at Taxable Talk.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
FAMILY PARTNERSHIP AUDITS LOOMING?
January 26, 2006
The Wall Street Journal had a piece yesterday reporting increased IRS scrutiny of family limited partnerships. The Tax Prof and Stuart Levine have more.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
ESTATE PLANNING FOR THE UNDEAD
January 26, 2006
Joel at Death and Taxes - The Blog is on a roll in discussing the perplexing issues relating to people who hope to have their corpses reanimated someday. I had to wipe the coffee off my monitor after reading:
What happens if a cryonics facility goes out of business or is destroyed by fire or other disaster? (And please, no "heads will roll" jokes.)
And do you have to pay the life insurance company your money back when you are re-animated? Great stuff, well worth reading in full.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
IRS AND NEWFANGLED COMMUNICATIONS
January 26, 2006
Reader "Brian" makes an interesting comment in an earlier post:
They should cut back on phone service in favor of electronic communications. Remember your discussion of accrual-to-cash method changes for S-corp banks? That's a bad case of asymetrical information.
Can you imagine if designated IRS personnel were allowed to interact with practitioners online? For example, what if IRS agents could comment on ABA-Tax, misc.taxes.moderated, or one of the other tax forums? What if regulation projects were blogged instead of being subject to the antiquated notice-and-comment procedures?
INTERACTION WITH IRS PERSONNEL: IT'S ALWAYS 1985.
Brian puts into words some things that have been bugging me about dealing with the IRS. At the examination level, you can't just exchange e-mails with scanned attachments. You have to exchange paper, or if the agent is a cutting-edge kind of guy, faxes. You can't email a spreadsheet; you have print it on paper and drop it in the mail. I don't think I have any clients that do business that way.
Another example: the IRS now has a system where you can get client information via the internet, but it requires an on-file power of attorney, which slows the process down immensely. Clients share their deepest financial secrets with us so we can prepare the return, but if we want to see whether the IRS has processed the returns, we're treated like Nigerian identity thieves. If the taxpayer authorizes us to discuss return items with IRS on the signature line, that authorization should allow preparers to also view taxpayer account information for that year.
RULEMAKING FOR THE STONE AGE
Brian is dead-on in criticizing the stone-age regulation comment process. Of course the Treasury has to go by the book to ensure that taxpayers are treated fairly, but that's no excuse for the current comment system. It seems like there are two obvious ways to improve and open up the comment process for proposed rules:
1. Immediately post on the web all comments on proposed regulations as they are received. Yes, they can be accessed at the IRS reading room (this is an actual room somewhere, not a web page), and Tax Analysts does post them for its subscribers, but in this day and age, that's lame.
2. Open an electronic comment board for each open regulation project and maybe for proposed published rulings. This could include a comment section analogous to blog comments for each posted comment on the proposed rules. An open comment board would attract comments from a much broader audience. Treasury rulemakers would monitor the comment board to ward off trolls, follow the discussion, follow up with their own responses, and maybe to even post possible wording modifications to the proposed rules. A comment board with commenters and regulation writers responding to each other would accelarate and improve the current glacial "one round of written comments" system. The give and take of a comment board would be much more likely than the current system to both identify problems and suggest solutions.
Is there any reason why the IRS and Treasury shouldn't go this route?
Link • Comments (2) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
SO WHEN DOES HE GET BACK ON THE ISLAND?
January 25, 2006
Richard Hatch, the Survivor guy, stands convicted of evading $365,000 of tax. In addition to 15 minutes of fame, he's likely to get more than 15 minutes in prison to ponder his next move. While newspaper accounts say he faces up to 13 years in prison, the real sentence will be based on the federal sentencing guidelines for tax crimes.
I have gone to the tables to try to rough out his likely sentence. I'm not even a lawyer, much less a judge, but the way I read the guidelines, a sentence of somewhere from 27 months to 41 months may be indicated. I guess it will be on the higher end of the scale.
According to the tax loss table below (on page 4 of the linked guidelines), the $365,000 loss with no prior criminal history gets Mr. Hatch to offense level 18. He gets no points off for cooperation or acceptance of responsibility.
Tax Loss Table
He may get two points added for "sophisticated means" - namely the use of an S corporation to park his talk show income. It's my understanding that even ineffective or inept use of shell entities may be considered "sophisticated" for this purpose. That would take him to offense level 20.
If offense level 18 applies, the guidelines call for 27-33 months in prison. At level 20, he faces 33 to 41 months. Assuming that he gets the extra points for sophistication, I'm guessing 36 months.
While these guidelines aren't mandatory anymore, I understand that judges go along with them for the most part.
Tax Sentencing Table excerpt
I invite any real lawyers in the crowd to chime in with your comments.
More on the guidelines here.
Link • Comments (2) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
NUDE DUDE'S FATE IN HANDS OF JURY (UPDATED: GUILTY)
January 25, 2006
The tax evasion trial of Richard Hatch, went to the jury yesterday. Unless the O.J. jury has been re-empaneled, Mr. Hatch, winner of the first season of "Survivor," is likely to be voted off the island of non-felons.
Links:
Taxable Talk
Tax Prof Blog
Mauled Again
UPDATE:Guilty on the tax charges, acquitted on bank, mail and wire fraud charges.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
THE DEAD PEASANT'S LAST GASP
January 25, 2006
Upon further review, the call on the field is reversed. The IRS has now won every case litigated so far against so-called "dead peasant" insurance policies with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Dow Chemical Company v. United States.
The decision overturns the sole taxpayer victory for these "Corporate Owned Life Insurance (COLI) tax deductions, a 2003 Michigan ruling. The COLI schemes attempted to give companies the ability to deduct interest on amounts borrowed to purchase life insurance on large groups of employees. If the taxpayer is allowed to deduct the interest, they get a tax deduction for the production of tax-free income - the cash value buildup of the insurance policies. The large pool of insureds eliminates most mortality risk in the policies.
Congress long ago stopped these plans, but now it looks like they never did work.
Links:
Sixth Circuit Decision
District Court Decision
Prior Tax Update coverage
UPDATE: Correction made as pointed out in the comment below (Thanks, Hank!).
Link • Comments (2) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
TWO WAYS TO SIMPLIFY ESTATE PLANNING
January 25, 2006
Hie thee to Death and Taxes; it won't take long, and you'll want to rewrite your will as soon as you're done.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
TAX SHELTER GRAND JURY GOING AFTER LAWYERS?
January 25, 2006
The New York Times reports today that there may be more tax shelter indictments, this time targeting a group of Chicago lawyers:
Federal prosecutors are investigating three lawyers at a prominent Dallas law firm, Jenkens & Gilchrist, in a widening of an investigation into questionable shelters that shielded billions of dollars from taxes, according to people briefed on the inquiry.
The criminal investigation of the lawyers, now being heard by a grand jury in Manhattan, is a clear sign that the government is extending the investigation of tax shelters that it considers abusive beyond the case involving the accounting firm KPMG.
There is no indication that Jenkens & Gilchrist itself is a target of the investigation. Petri Darby, a spokesman for Jenkens & Gilchrist, said yesterday, "We are cooperating fully with the investigation."
Instead, the investigation is focused on three current and former tax lawyers based in the firm's Chicago office, the heart of its tax practice. They are Paul M. Daugerdas (pronounced DOG-er-dus), Erwin Mayer and Donna M. Guerin, according to the people who have been briefed on the investigation.
It's interesting that there was never any thought of going after the law firm, while the KPMG accounting firm was forced to throw a number of its people to the wolves under threat of indictment. Are accountants held to a higher (or less low) standard?
Link • KPMG ~ • Tax Shelter News Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
WE LEFT THE DOOR OPEN, BUT NOBODY WENT INTO THE SAFE
January 25, 2006
The IRS has told Tax Analysts that serious security weaknesses in IRS computer systems had not resulted in unauthorized access of computer systems:
“The IRS has no evidence, after reviewing our audit logs and reviewing our processes and system configurations, that any IRS data was improperly accessed by any unauthorized individuals, either internal or external to the government,” IRS spokesman Bruce Friedland said.
When asked why "Spot Friedland" and "Tabby Friedland" were claimed as dependents on his returns after graduating from college, but not after social security numbers were required for dependents, Friedland said "Who told you?" He refused further comment, and did not respond to questions about why his wife deducted trips to the day spa as medical expenses.
Link • Satire Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
LLCs, S CORPs and 'C's, OH MY
January 24, 2006
Yesterday's post on Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and S corporations triggered a fun exchange with Ryan Ellis of Americans for Tax Reform. It is reproduced, with Ryan's kind consent, in the extended entry below.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
BLOGGING TAX PROFS TO THE RESCUE?
January 24, 2006
George K. Yin, who recently stepped down as Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee of Taxation, has a wide-ranging interview in Tax Analysts ($) today. A very smart man, Mr. Yin has lots of food for thought for tax policy nerds afficianados. I hope the TaxProf will pull the interview from behind the Tax Analyst subscriber firewall (UPDATE 1/25: he has!), but this discussion of the difficulties of tax reform is worth passing on:
One of the advantages of any serious discussion of tax reform is the opportunity it provides to overcome the collective action problem that bedevils most tax legislative efforts. Tax reform allows lawmakers to focus on and precommit to providing small benefits for the many, as opposed to -- or in exchange for -- large benefits held by the few. There are, of course, other reasons to consider major tax reform, but to me that is a principal advantage.
Unfortunately, the current state of the tax system is not really conducive to demonstrating easily the "small benefits to be obtained by the many" from any tax reform effort. Recall that when President Reagan took office, the top tax rate on ordinary income was 70 percent. Capital gains, which as recently as 1978 had been taxed at about 50 percent, were taxed at 28 percent. By presenting a tax reform plan that taxed both types of income at no higher than 28 percent, the president and Congress were able to offer the lure of significant, tangible benefits to a broad segment of the population.
Now compare that experience to the current situation, where the top rate on ordinary income is 35 percent and the top rate on dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. Under any reasonable assumption of the amount of revenue that must be raised to pay for essential government functions, it is clear that there is much less room to maneuver in terms of possible tax rate reduction.
A CALL-OUT FOR TAX PROF BLOGGERS?
Mr. Yin also calls for the tax academics to climb down from their ivory towers:
In particular, I would encourage the academic community to become more active in the debate. For example, legal academics who think seriously about tax policy tend to work on very "big picture" ideas for the long term. They tend to ignore debates on smaller issues being considered in the short term, or even more immediately. Sometimes they write articles after a change has been made detailing the policy arguments for and against the change. But for the most part, these arguments come too late. Thus, they tend to cede the principal debate opportunities to the inside-the-Beltway crowd who provide their input to Congress in real time.
At least two tax profs are already in this game: Jim Maule and Daniel Shaviro. Not coincidentally, they are bloggers. The blog format is tailor-made for the quick responses needed to participate in a legislative debate. Let's hope Mr. Yin, who is now the Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation at the University of Virginia School of Law, starts his own tax blog and joins in.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
IRS GIVES UP ON PLANS TO CUT BACK TELEPHONE SERVICE
January 24, 2006
From Tax Analysts:
After two congressional actions and continual clashes with advocacy groups, the IRS has officially abandoned plans to cut its telephone helpline hours.
The National Treasury Employees Union announced on January 23 that the IRS sent word late January 20 that it would scrap plans to cut daily helpline hours from 15 to 12, the second time over the last year the IRS has backed away from service cuts under congressional pressure. The IRS concession arrived in a one-line notification e-mail without further explanation, the NTEU said, ending a bargaining process the union was entering under protest.
“Good riddance to this ill-conceived plan that would have made it more difficult for taxpayers to voluntarily comply with their tax obligations,” said NTEU President Colleen M. Kelley.
This is good news for taxpayers who want more time to get an answer that will be wrong about one time out of four.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
CARNIVAL THE NEXT DAY
January 24, 2006
This Week's "Carnival of the Capitalists" is up at "Patent Baristas". Notable posts include a discussion at Scrivener.net, "How a tax credit can increase the cost of hybrid cars." The Scrivener notes the problem that we have pointed out with the hybrid credit: that the alternative minimum tax will make the credit useless to many taxpayers.
Also, don't miss Henry Stern's Insureblog post on whether a personal-injury defendant can be sued for the "difference" when a plaintiff's medical insurer gets a discount on the cost of treating the injury. Puzzling stuff.
Lots of other good stuff there at this weekly compilation of economics and business blog postings.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
WHY MORE S CORPORATIONS THAN LLCs?
January 23, 2006
The TaxProf Blog has a fine post this morning noting that S corporations remain more popular than LLCs. UM-KC prof Christopher R. Hoyt writes:
Trends in the real world on "choice of entity" decisions may conflict with the recommendations we might make to students. Generally I prefer an LLC to any sort of corporation, but every year there are twice as many S Corporations formed as there are LLCs.
Professor Hoyt's post doesn't discuss why this is happening. My initial thoughts*:
Self-employment and FICA taxes:While the IRS is trying its best to frighten people in this regards, S corporation shareholders still often have more ability to reduce employment taxes than LLC members. S corporation K-1 earnings aren't self employment income, while LLC earnings usually are, at least for active members. The continuing uncertainty over how LLCs are to be treated for self-employment taxes doesn't help.
Complexity: While LLCs have a lot more flexibility than S corporations, many business owners don't want the accompanying complexity. I've seen many eyes glaze over while trying to explain capital account maintenance and liability allocation issues, and I don't think the boredom was all my fault.
S corporation liberalization: Congress has passed a series of laws making it easier to qualify for an S corporation election.
General Utilities issues: A C corporation can often convert to S corporation status at a small tax cost; the ten-year built-in gain tax can often be managed. In contrast, a C corporation cannot become an LLC without immediately recognizing all of its built in gains in liquidation.
W-2 vs. guaranteed payments: S corporation owners take their compensation out of the business as salary, which is reported on form W-2, with the usual tax withholding. LLC members pick up their compensation as guaranteed payments, with no withholding mechanism. Many business owners prefer S corporation salary, with taxes withheld, to paying quarterly estimated taxes on their guaranteed payments.
State Issues: Iowa discriminates against the LLC form for multi-state businesses based here. Iowans owning S corporations get a tax credit that has the effect of applying modified single-factor apportionment to their distributive share. The credit is unavailable to LLC owners.
Regulatory restrictions: There has been a surge of S corporation elections by community banks since 1996, when they first qualified. While banking authorities are beginning to take steps to allow LLC banks, it's not clear that it is even possible for an LLC to be taxed as a bank.
In my practice I see LLCs most often used in the way noted by Mr. Hoyt:
Real estate and finance/insurance account for nearly 75% of the assets of all businesses operating in any sort of partnership form.
I see LLCs and LLPs used a lot in ventures between corporations (including S corporations), real estate deals and investment entities. For other businesses, most owners prefer the perceived simplicity and straight-up income and loss allocations of S corporations.
UPDATE: Russ from Taxable Talk looks at the issue from a California perspective:
In California, there are two major factors working against LLCs. First, all S Corps and LLCs in California must pay a minimum state franchise (income) tax of $800 per year (or 1.5% of net income, whichever is greater). But LLCs also face a gross receipts tax, so LLCs in California are triple-taxed! The current minimum gross receipts tax (called an LLC fee) is $865 per year. Second, some businesses are prohibited from being in an LLC. These include professionals, such as architects and accountants. (They can form LLPs, though).
*For purposes of this discussion, I assume we are talking about LLCs choosing to be taxed as partnerships.
UPDATE, 2/23/06: More here.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
GEORGE WASHINGTON AND ARBITRATION
January 23, 2006
I learned something new at the Death and Taxes Blog today: George Washington's will had an arbitration provision to keep any disputes over its provisions out of the courtroom:
My Will and direction expressly is, that all disputes (if unhappily any should arise) shall be decided by three impartial and intelligent men, known for their probity and good understanding; two to be chosen by the disputants--each having the choice of one--and the third by those two. Which three men thus chosen, shall, unfettered by Law, or legal constructions, declare their sense of the Testators intention; and such decision is, to all intents and purposes to be as binding on the Parties as if it had been given in the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Death and Taxes post has more good stuff, including a link to the full text of Washington's will.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
NO DEDUCTION FOR DRASTIC ASSET REDUCTION SURGERY
January 23, 2006
An IRS Chief Counsel's Office memo reported today by Tax Analysts studies the $64 question:
Whether the taxpayer's costs for male-to-female gender reassignment surgery (and related medications, treatments, and transportation) paid during Year 6 may be deducted as medical expenses under I.R.C. § 213.
Conclusion? The IRS isn't going to stick its, er, neck out on this one:
Without an unequivocal expression of Congressional intent that expenses of this type qualify under section 213, allowing the medical expense deduction is not justified in this case.
Showing once again that a deduction isn't always deductible.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
NEXT STEP: DIRECT WITHDRAWAL FROM YOUR BANK ACCOUNT
January 22, 2006
The ultimate in convenience for those choosing to pay the tax on people who are bad at math: a slot machine video lottery terminal with an ATM right alongside. This helps small businesses, like this Hy-Vee liquor mart, make ends meet.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
THE WEEK IN TAX CRIME
January 21, 2006
DEFINITIONAL DIFFICULTIES IN PHILADELPHIA:
The online edition online edition of the Philadlphia Inquirer reported yesterday:
Philadelphia restaurateur Neil Stein, who admitted that he skimmed at least $500,000 cash from his high-end establishments over a three-year period, was sentenced to one year in prison on tax evasion charges this afternoon.
Perhaps Mr. Stein's difficulties are traceable to some confusion over the meaning of "crime."
Before he was sentenced, Stein told Pollak that he had been addicted to cocaine, heroin, percocet and alcohol for much of his life.
"I am not a crook," he told the judge. "I was using a diseased brain to make decisions."
Maybe laws are different in Philadelphia, but if I'm not mistaken, cocaine and heroin are illegal there, too - making Mr. Stein a "crook," as I understand the term.
That said, Mr. Stein has enough moxie that he's likely to bounce back sometime. He is also "NEIL STEIN, The Man Who Said No to the President of the United States of America":
The Striped Bass happens to be a very popular restaurant, and it's next to impossible to secure an immediate reservation on a Saturday night. But the President of the United States could probably get the Beatles back together, and if he wants dinner, he gets dinner. All it takes is a simple phone call.
Unless the phone is answered by Neil Stein, the proprietor of the Striped Bass...
According to Stein, "there was only one decision to make. We had 300 reservations for that Saturday night, and these reservations are made some eight weeks in advance. People come here for some very important occasions including graduations, anniversaries, important business deals, and things like engagements. You want me to tell someone that they can't get engaged in the Striped Bass because the President wants to have dinner in my restaurant?"
"I have 127 employees who know exactly where I stand with my customers. They know my priorities. If I make a decision that is good for the Restaurant only, and without regard to my loyal customers and my staff, the Striped Bass would never be the same."
The man has nerve, no doubt about that. One only hopes that standing up to the President didn't attract unwanted attention to Mr. Stein.
MEANWHILE IN NEW JERSEY...
The Asbury Park Press reports:
A state Superior Court judge has sentenced a Rumson resident to four years in state prison for evading $4.6 million in business taxes.
The sentencing ends what state officials said is the biggest criminal tax-evasion case they have brought in New Jersey history.
Michael J. Buonopane, 45, a lawyer, accountant and businessman, already has repaid the $4,642,452 in federal and state employee-withholding taxes and state sales tax. He has three years to repay $1 million in interest on the taxes, along with $250,000 in penalties to the state, according to state Deputy Attorney General Denise Grugan.
His lawyer sought leniency, telling the court that Mr. Buonopane suffers depression and an anxiety disorder. If I were facing four years in a New Jersey prison, I too would be depressed and anxious.
"SURVIVOR" HATCH LAYS IT ON THICK
Richard Hatch's tax trial continues. He apparently is switching from the "blame the accountant. Oh, I'm the accountant" ploy to the "I hope the jury is really stupid" strategy:
The reality champ's defense attorney dropped a bombshell Friday at Hatch's federal tax evasion trial, alleging that Survivor producers struck a deal with Hatch while he was a contestant on the show, agreeing to pay the taxes on his million-dollar prize if he won.
The bargain purportedly came about after Hatch allegedly caught some of his fellow contestants cheating by having friends sneak food to them on the island. He told producers, who ultimately attempted to buy his silence, the story goes.
That's right, Mr. Hatch is in tax trouble because he's just too honest. O-kaaay... Let's ponder this.
Mr. Hatch caught fellow contestants cheating. He tells the producers. Do they make it part of the show and throw the cheaters off? No, they try to corrupt Mr. Hatch!
Do they offer him cash? Some decent clothes, so he doesn't have to run around naked? No! They offer to pay is taxes if he wins. And, not having won anything yet, Mr. Hatch says that's fine, he'll take a flyer on maybe saving future taxes, rather than demanding real money now.
Yeah. Uh Huh. Happens all the time...
Link • Comments (2) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
FEBRUARY 4, 2006 IOWA BLOGGER BASH: WHAT THEY'RE SAYING
January 20, 2006
Here are two advance notices:
Political Madman: "I'll be at the blogger bash..."
Jody of Iowa Geek: "Look forward to meeting you at the bash."
You, too can be there! Raccoon River Brewing Co., @7:00 pm. Free internet, but you buy your own beer. Unless you get somebody else to, which will probably get easier as the evening progresses.
Link • Comments (2) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
TROUBLE BREWING IN TERRYVILLE
January 20, 2006
Somebody in Terryville, Connecticut may be in for a bad day soon. From the IRS auction website:
The Internal Revenue Service may be conducting a public auction in the Terryville, Connecticut area in the very near future. The Items consist of approximately 8,671 pieces of Rain Suits, Rain Coats, Rain Jackets, Rain Pants, Parkas, Ponchos, Umbrellas, Boots, Rain Hats, Thermal Underwear, Socks, Retail value of merchandise is approximately $158,000.00 This sale will be conducted under IRC Section 6336, perishable goods. This means that the property will be sold the same day it is seized. This will be a cash sale and the property must be removed the same day. The sale will be absolute. We do not charge sales tax or a buyer’s premium.
Well, that gives somebody fair warning.
That's a lot of rain gear. Clearly this taxpayer is seriously underwater...
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
'TOWER EXECUTIVE RESOURCES' PROMOTORS SENTENCED
January 20, 2006
The promoters of the "Tower Executive Resources" tax scam are going away for awhile, according to a Justice Department press release. Paul D Harris will serve 5 1/2 years, followed by three years of supevised release. Co-defendant Lestr R. Retherford got a 48-month sentence. The Coloradans scam involved setting up a phony offshore company:
According to the evidence introduced at trial, wealthy taxpayers paid initiation fees of up to $50,000 to join Tower Executive Resources and thousands more in annual fees to maintain their membership. Harris and Retherford set up shell corporations for their clients that were used to conceal nearly $9 million in taxable income. The clients transferred millions of dollars to secret bank accounts in the Turks and Caicos Islands and other foreign countries. These secret bank accounts were titled under the names of International Business Companies (IBC’s) and other nominee entities. Although these IBCs were owned “on paper” by a taxicab driver from the Turks and Caicos Islands, they were actually controlled by the Tower Executive Resources’ clients. The defendants made it appear as though the offshore transfers were payments for consulting services by issuing a series of false invoices to the clients’ businesses, which the clients falsely deducted on their businesses’ tax returns. The Tower Executive Resources clients then used debit cards and bogus loans to bring the money they had transferred offshore back into the United States for their own personal benefit.
An heir to the Bekins Moving business was among the clients. He testified on behalf of the Government and now awaits sentencing by the U.S. District Court in Seattle. The Justice Department release says nine Tower clients have been convicted and three more are under indictment.
The Moral: Tax planners who say you can move your wealth off shore tax-free with deductible expenses, but still keep the money - like Tower Resources and Anderson's Ark - are indictments waiting to happen. Don't touch them with a 10-foot consulting fee.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
DID CLINTON IRS COVER UP FOR FORMER HUD SECRETARY?
January 20, 2006
That's the conclusion of independent counsel David M. Barrett, filed in 2004 but only released yesterday, with heavy redactions. The report says the IRS National Office took the case out of normal channels and overrode the IRS South Texas Criminal Investigative Decision to quash tax charges. Tax Analysts reports:
Documentation from the IRS’s examination of Cisneros indicated that IRS lawyers deviated from their normal protocols in the case, according to the report. Also, Barrett’s team unearthed a memo from the head of the Texas criminal division accusing the IRS assistant chief counsel (criminal tax) of conspiring with Justice to intentionally derail the “meritorious” tax case against Cisneros. It alleged that the National Office had stepped in with the intention of “killing” the case. The head of the assistant chief counsel’s office that took control of the case was also accused of maintaining a “cozy” relationship with Cisneros’s lawyers.
For some reason reading about Clinton Administration scandals gives me the same feeling I get when I awake from a nightmare that I am back in high school. But at least when I wake up, I know I won't have to go back to high school.
Links:
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
INEPTITUDE, DISCRIMINATION: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
January 20, 2006
While same-sex couples can use wills and contracts to achieve many of the legal rights that traditional couples get through marriage, incompetence conquers all. Joel Schoenmeyer explains at his "Death and Taxes" blog.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
HARKIN: TAX CREDITS FOR E-85 PUMPS!
January 20, 2006
Gas station owners who don't want to invest in upgrading their facilities to pump E-85 might get an incentive from Uncle Sam. Iowa Senator Tom Harkin is proposing a bill that would provide a tax credit of up to 30-thousand dollars per gas station to outfit them to sell the 85-percent ethanol fuel, which is made from corn.
Harkin says "We need more E-85 pumps all over the United States. Right now we can produce the E-85 but the tax credits are not there to promote that. So my philosophy is to provide the tax credits to get more E-85 pumps, not just in Iowa, but all over the United States." Harkin says the legislation, which is being co-sponsored by several senators, goes beyond E-85.
Sigh. Leaving aside the questionable premise that E-85 is something the government should subsidize, why do politicians think that the solution for every problem lies in the tax code? And once a credit like this gets enacted, the next thing will be a credit for cars to buy the E-85 because the gas station owners aren't selling enough. Then we'd find the credits are really going to "big oil," or to "big corn." And then everyone would realize that the Alternative Minimum Tax deferred the value of those credits to the year 2023. And then we'll need slot machines in every gas station to cover the additional costs of all those extra pumps. Oh, wait...
(Via State 29)
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
20-YEAR OLD TAX DISPUTE SPLINTERS TAX COURT
January 19, 2006
Today's Tax Court decision in Lois E. Ordlock is unusual in several ways.
- It is a "regular" decision, rather than a "memorandum" or "summary" ruling. In recent years these are as regular as an old accountant on a low-fiber diet.
- The court is split, 10 judges to 8, with a concurring opinion and two dissenting opinions. The last time anything like this happened was in the Bongard case last March.
- It involves tax liabilities arising while I was still in school.
The case involves whether a California woman can get a refund on taxes collected on her husband's 1982-1984 liabilities under the "innocent spouse" rules. California is a "community property" state. The question at issue was whether the "innocent" spouse can claim a refund of taxes paid out of "her" share of community property. The court said she could not.
Ms. Ordlock has the consolation of knowing that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit has some promise, given that 8 Tax Court judges agree with her side of the case. On the other hand, it can't be much fun to still be fighting a tax dispute that arose when this was on the radio:
If you are a wronged spouse in a community property case, make sure you get your refund claims or court filings in on time, because this case is probably not over.
Cite: Lois E. Ordlock, 126 T.C. No. 4
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
FEBRUARY 2006 APPLICABLE FEDERAL RATES (AFRs) RELEASED
January 19, 2006
The IRS has issued (Rev. Rul. 2006-07) the minimum interest rates for loans made in February 2006:
-Short Term (demand loans and loans with terms of up to 3 years): 4.39%
-Mid-Term (loans from 3-9 years): 4.40%
-Long-Term (over 9 years): 4.61%
Can you say "flatter yield curve"?
Historical AFRs are available via the “Links” page at www.rothcpa.com.
Link • Applicable Federal Rates Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
ROTH 401(k) AND IOWA TAXES
January 19, 2006
An astute reader queries whether Roth 401(k) plan distributions will qualify for the same tax-free treatment on Iowa returns that they will have for federal purposes.
Unless the legislature does something affirmatively stupid - unlikely in this case, but never impossible - Roth 401(k) distributions will be taxed the same way on Iowa returns as on U.S. returns. Iowa annually conforms its rules for computing taxable income to the current federal rules. Unless the legislature specifies an exception, every new tax change applies to Iowa. As Iowa has not carved out Roth 401(k) distributions in it's latest code-conformity legislation, the federal rules apply to Iowa.
Link • Iowa Tax Law Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
H&R BLOCK V. TURBOTAX
January 19, 2006
The 900 lb. gorillas of tax preparation are going toe to toe over ad claims. I note it with the same cheerful detachment as I would a bench-clearing brawl at a Yankees intra-squad game.
Lawyers for H&R Block and Intuit exchange pretrial motions.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
THE MAULE WAR ON DOUBLE-FICA
January 19, 2006
Villanova Professor James Maule has taken up his might cudgel against the double FICA taxation of job-switchers. This occurs when an employee works for two employers and his combined income exceeds the maximum amount (currently $90,000) subject to the 6.2% FICA tax imposed on both employers and employees. If you work for two employers, each employer will withhold FICA "OASDI portion" on income up to the cap. While the employee can treat any FICA withheld over the excess ($90,000 x 6.2%, or $5,580) as income tax withholding and get a refund, the excess paid by the two employers is just gone.
Professor Maule dislikes this result:
From a policy perspective, so long as the OASDI limit exists, and so long as employees move from job to job, the same notion of portability that is so prominent in compensation taxation considerations should similarly apply to this issue. The portability concept is that employees and employers should not be disadvantaged, in terms of the tax and other consequences of retirement savings, simply because employees change jobs. The same concept should apply to OASDI
Prof. Maule is absolutely correct. Yet I think Congress is about as likely to to fix this as it is to vote term limits on itself.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
CAR SHOPPING? IRS HAS SOME BEAUTS
January 18, 2006
It looks like a classic car collector got crossways with IRS, based on the cars for sale here on IRS auction website.
At first I wanted this 1958 Lincoln.
Then I saw this 1962 T-bird.
Then I saw my dream barge. It just needs new whitewalls and curb feelers!
But I think I'll settle for something sensible.
Does the purse come with it?
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
WHAT'S 1.5% WORTH?
January 18, 2006
Most taxpayers with money coming back from the IRS don't much worry about how much interest the IRS pays. In fact, most refunds don't even earn interest. When they do, it's enough for many taxpayers just to get the money back, and the interest isn't worth fighting over.
Now if the overpayment is $1.6 billion, that's a different story.
For "large corporate overpayments" - those over $10,000 - the tax law provides a 1.5% reduction in the interest rate paid by the IRS, a result of a 1994 tax law change. Exxon-Mobil went to Tax Court to argue that interest accrued prior to the law change was exempt from the 1.5% haircut. Yesterday, the Tax Court disappointed the oil company.
A quick and dirty calculation shows that the 1.5% difference from January 1, 1995 until today on the $1.6 billion overpayment would amount to just shy of $487 million. That goes to show what a little compound interest can do, when you start with $1.6 billion.
Cite: ExxonMobil Corporation, 126 TC No. 3.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
HAPPY BIRTHDAY, BEN
January 17, 2006
Ben Franklin turns 300 today. Were he alive now, he would need to know his tax pro far too well.
Ben had a very successful printing business. He operated it as a sole proprietorship, which would have meant a schedule C and Schedule SE, with the 15.3% self-employment tax on the first $90,000 in today's income (about $4,230 in 1776 dollars); a top marginal U.S. rate of 35%; a Pennsylvania top rate of 3.07%; and a 4.4625 Philadelphia City Tax.
Today he might instead operate as an S corporation, with about the same results, but with some room to play games with his self-employment and FICA taxes.
Or he could operate as a C corporation, with a top rate of 35%, a Pennsylvania rate of 9.99% and additional federal tax of 15% on distributions, in addition to state and city income taxes at the regular rate. This would be offset somewhat by some tax-free fringes and opportunities to spend time manipulating income between the C corporation and his personal return, in lieu of, say, flying kites.
Because printing generates "Qualified Production Activities Income," he would have his accountants busy trying to allocate expenses to "non-qualifying income" to maximize his Section 199 deduction. He would be aghast that the deduction doesn't apply to revenue generated by the online version of his publications.
A federal estate tax of up to 46% and a Pennsylvania inheritance tax of up to 15% would apply at his death.
With extended stays in England and France, he would get to know the intracacies of the U.S.-U.K. and U.S. - France tax treaties. He would take advantage of the earned-income exclusion for part of his overseas income, but he would remain subject to U.S. taxes, and to some degree U.K and French taxes.
Of course, as a critical figure in the American Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution, not to mention his successful concurrent careers in business and science, he did a lot of stuff that was harder than taxes, even today's taxes. Still, he would have been appalled at the amount of his energy that would be diverted from his inventions and civic involvement to his tax compliance and planning.
Fortunately, he would have been able to keep his perspective:
"Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
And he would no doubt be having a lot of fun, too.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
TAX POLICY BLOG: FOR SPINACH IN PRINCIPLE, AGAINST IN PRACTICE
January 17, 2006
The Tax Policy Blog has a good post up discussing the dynamics of targeted tax incentives, better known as corporate welfare:
"The best tax policy that states can promote would not include these targeted tax policies for specific industries or companies, but rather a policy that taxes all industries equally and with a low rate; thereby promoting investment across the board and not distorting investment decisions."
Oddly, the Tax Foundation, which hosts the Tax Policy Blog, is strongly against the Cuno decision, which strikes down Ohio's tax incentive scheme. They've even filed a brief with the Supreme Court defending the right of states to enact corporate welfare tax incentives.
I'm sure the Tax Foundation has good lawyers with all sorts of good legal reasons why states should be free to engage in trade wars with other states through corporate welfare. I'm not a lawyer, I say it's all spinach, and I say the hell with it.
Link Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
CARNIVALS!
January 16, 2006
The Carnival of the Capitalists and the Carnival of Personal Finance are up for this week.
At the Capitalists Carnival, Jane at "Lip-sticking" says January 12 is "National Tax Advice Day." And I didn't get a card. Hank Stern is there to remind us who really pays for "employer-paid" health coverage.
The Personal Finance carnival has this item:
Frugal For Life has written about minimalist living and what that means. A great article for those curious about minimizing their life, or just their expenses.
I hope they mean "simplifying," rather than "minimizing." Life's too short as it is, except during tax season.
Link • Comments (1) Bookmark: del.icio.us • Digg • reddit
TAX EVADERS GET BANISHED
January 16, 2006
Most tax evaders at least get to stay in the country when they finish serving their time. Not these guys:
The former owners of a North Charleston grocery store will be deported back to their native Jordan as partial punishment for tax evasion.
Brothers Amjad and Shadi Kamleh pleaded guilty in August to devising and carrying out a scheme that allowed them to hide at least $100,000 in profits from a Red and White Grocery their family bought in 1999. Federal authorities say some of the money was funneled to a joint bank account in Jordan's capital, Amman.
If Iowa starts imposing residency restrictions on tax evaders - say, by not allowing them to live within 2000 feet of a video lottery installation -- they all might have to move to Jordan.
Link Bookmark: