Archive for the ‘Nevada’ Category

Nevada’s Budget Troubles

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

While California has been on center stage with its budget troubles, Nevada, too, has had problems. The Silver State is facing an $887 million budget deficit (by comparison, California is facing a $19.9 billion deficit). Unemployment is high, and revenues in the gaming industry fell by the largest percentage ever in 2009.

Governor Jim Gibbons (R) has proposed two tax increases (mining and sales) but in his view they’re not tax increases. “That is not a tax increase if you look at it carefully,” Gibbons said about the mining-tax proposal. “That is simply clarifying the deductions that they are allowed to take.” Well, when taxes go up it’s an increase. I’ll ignore the semantics and say that’s what’s happening.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the Nevada legislature also want to increase taxes according to a story in the Las Vegas Review Journal. Since it appears that the only people who don’t want taxes to increase in Nevada are Republicans in the legislature taxes are going up in Nevada.

As I’ve been saying about California, what must happen everywhere is that spending needs to be cut to revenues. Pension benefits will need to be cut. Public employees salaries will be decreasing in the future. That’s the reality: The public (voters) don’t want tax increases. If you’re running for office, ignoring the voters is a way to head to a new career.

California, Nevada, and Texas

Wednesday, August 26th, 2009

A California State Assemblyman is upset with the ads that the Nevada Development Corporation is running. California is golden, and Nevada is silver. Why would any business leave? Here’s Assemblyman Jose Solorio’s (D-Anaheim) response:

Before I comment on that, there’s also a great op-ed piece in the Dallas News about the difference between California and Texas. One state is gaining business and one is, well, issuing IOUs. Hint: California isn’t the golden state in comparison to Texas.

As for Assemblyman Solorio, he may want to watch these two short spots.

It’s one thing to say, “California is great.” Can Assemblyman Solorio deny that it costs far more for a business to operate in the Golden State than it does in the Silver State? Unfortunately, everything in the Nevada Development Authority’s advertisements is true.

Las Vegas 2, Sacramento 0

Sunday, August 9th, 2009

The Nevada Development Authority is Southern Nevada’s government agency that attempts to draw new businesses to the Las Vegas area. They’ve got a new campaign aimed at California.

Why? Well, the California Legislature is making the NDA’s job easy. Here’s one advertisement:

Interestingly enough, KABC-TV (Channel 7 here) will not air the television advertisements developed by the NDA. As this article notes, KABC’s decision will likely draw more publicity to the campaign.

There’s an easy way for California to fight this, though. Lower taxes, cut regulations, and make businesses want to be in the Golden State. Unfortunately, I suspect that will happen when pigs can actually fly.

Nevada Also Has a Budget Crisis

Sunday, May 3rd, 2009

Nevada has its own budget crisis. The Silver State budgets biennially. The Nevada Legislature voted an $8 billion budget late last year. However, it appears that only $5.5 billion in revenue will be raised during 2010 and 2011.

Republican Governor Jim Gibbons says he’ll veto any tax increases. “I don’t know of too many businesses around Nevada today who are looking at reduced revenues that cannot find some way to balance their budget…Sometimes it has been reducing salary levels, reducing benefits, retirements, eliminating 401(k)s. Across the board, these are tough choices.”

Meanwhile, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford asked Nevadans to prepare for tax increases. “Today, I am asking hard-working Nevadans to make a sacrifice for their children’s education and our state’s future…I am also asking corporations, casinos and other interests to share in the revenue solution.”

Nevada’s legislature, which is far more evenly split between Republicans and Democrats than in California, has worked together in the past. It will be interesting to see if a compromise can be reached.

Bozo Tax Tip #7: Nevada Corporations

Monday, April 6th, 2009

Nevada is doing everything it can to draw businesses from California. Frankly, California is doing a lot to draw businesses away from the Bronze Golden State. But just like last year you need to beware if you’re going to incorporate in Nevada.

If the corporation operates in California it will need to file a California tax return. Period. It doesn’t matter if the corporation is a California corporation, a Delaware corporation, or a Nevada corporation.

Now, if you’re planning on moving to Nevada incorporating in the Silver State can be a very good idea. But thinking you’re going to avoid California taxes just because you’re a Nevada corporation is, well, bozo.

Weekend Mailbag

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

Three questions of interest this weekend. The first deals with moving to Nevada, the second with the requirement to report foreign financial accounts, and the third deals with deducting clothing.

First, a reader asks: I want to move to Nevada. I will move my busines there also. However, most of my business will still be done in California. Will I still have to pay income taxes on my business profit and income from other investments?

If you truly move from California to Nevada, and are a Nevada resident, you will no longer owe California income tax. Similarly, if your business reincorporates (if it is a corporation) or otherwise changes its domicile to Nevada, and no longer is present in California, then it, too, will no longer be taxed by California.

This being tax, there are several caveats to be aware of. Among these are the following:

  • In the year you move, you will need to file a partial year California tax return. California will tax you on all California source income for that year.
  • Be aware that California, like many other states, will attempt to tax you if you spend two weeks (or more) in the Golden State on business.

There are several other “gotchas” that you should discuss with your tax professional.

Next, I’ve gotten several questions relating to the filing of the report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts. Here’s one of many: I read on your blog of the need to file the Report of Foreign Accounts. But I don’t want to because it will increase my risk of audits, and I don’t think it’s required. I read on 2+2 that online poker accounts are ‘transfer accounts’ and not foreign bank accounts. I’m not a big gambler, so why should I file this form?

First, Congress wrote this law. The IRS and the Department of the Treasury have the thankless task of interpreting this law.

And this law is fairly clear: Foreign financial accounts must be reported if an individual has $10,000 or more in one or more foreign financial accounts. Casinos in the United States fall under financial institution reporting requirements; why shouldn’t casinos in other countries be considered foreign financial institutions?

Additionally, many of these online casinos offered “echecks” and would take money directly from patrons’ checking accounts. Those are activities that banks perform.

As to why you should file this form, it’s simple: It’s required. If you don’t, and you are caught, you can face up to a $10,000 fine for non-willful non-reporting and a minimum $100,000 fine for willful non-reporting. You can also find yourself sent to ClubFed. If you think that the defense “I didn’t know about this” or “I was a small time player” will work, I’ll tell you now that neither will.

If you’re such a small-time gambler, you’re not a likely target for an audit (the IRS goes where the money is; generally, the more you make the higher your risk of audit). While the TwoPlusTwo poker forums have excellent poker information, you have to be very careful when you read legal and tax threads. The defense, “I relied on Joe Schmoe from TwoPlusTwo” will likely result in the judge asking you if he was your paid professional preparer.

Yes, you’re not likely to get caught. The odds are definitely in your favor. But it’s the law to report these accounts. You may not like the idea that the same people who enforce this law (the IRS and the Department of the Treasury) get to interpret this law. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is, and you will get no sympathy from the IRS, the Department of the Treasury, or a judge. I’m advising all my clients who have these accounts and meet the reporting requirements ($10,000 or more at one or more foreign financial accounts) to report them.

Here’s the third question. I’m a personal trainer, and I can’t believe the answers I’ve gotton [sic] from my accountant. I can’t believe that gym shoes aren’t deductible for me, and that gym memberships aren’t deductible for my clients. Tell me he’s wrong.

Sorry, your accountant is generally correct. For most individuals, health club memberships are not deductible. I’d probably go insane during tax season if I didn’t go to the gym but Congress says I can’t deduct that. Congress makes the laws, and that’s the way it is. (A few people who have to go to the gym for medical reasons may be able to take a gym membership as a deductible medical expense. Of course, that’s subject to a 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income limitation so not many will be able to deduct it that way, either.)

As for clothing, to be deductible it must not be usable outside of work. A policeman’s uniform, for example, is clearly deductible. However, his black socks wouldn’t be. Gym shoes aren’t deductible as they can be used outside of a health club.

Well, perhaps I made one of the three individuals who wrote me happy. As usual, I suggest you consult your own tax professional on any issues that you have.

The FTB Losing Streak Continues

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

The Franchise Tax Board’s battle against Gilbert Hyatt continues in Las Vegas. Mr. Hyatt, as you may recall, moved from California to Las Vegas in the early 1990s a few months before he received a patent settlement in the millions. The FTB conducted a residency audit and found he was still a resident of Nevada. Mr. Hyatt sued the FTB in Nevada; the FTB fought the lawsuit claiming immunity from being sued. That case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and the Court ruled that the FTB could be sued.

Last year Mr. Hyatt finally won his case, and he won big. He won $396.08 million. Over the last week Judge Jessie Walsh denied the FTB’s motion for a new trial. She also told the FTB that they must post a bond if they wish to appeal. Somehow, Judge Walsh doesn’t think California’s credit is good. I believe (but am not certain) that a 10% bond must be posted, so that would mean about $39 million.

What is thoroughly annoying to me is that the tactics that a California resident cannot sue the FTB even if the FTB were to use the same tactics as they used against Mr. Hyatt. The FTB does enjoy sovereign immunity in California.

Further motions are scheduled to be heard on March 11th. Presumably if these motions are denied the next step is for the FTB to file an appeal.

Blinders Here, Blinders There

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

The dysfunctional California legislature was unable to resolve the budget fiasco yesterday. Democrats proposed a plan that would have tripled the car tax and made a few symbolic budget cuts; Republicans refused to vote for it because they want a permanent measure mandating spending limitations.

The new legislature is sworn in next week. Unfortunately, I suspect that the only difference will be the names and Sacramento will be as dysfunctional as ever.

This is having an impact on California’s ability to sell bonds. Interestingly, the prices for bonds may imply that the state has a huge risk of bankruptcy. At least that’s what a British commentator has said.

And California isn’t the only state in such danger. Michigan, Nevada, and New Jersey are on the list, too. Let’s look at each in turn.

Michigan is likely on the list for two reasons: the troubles with the automobile industry and the state’s miserable business climate. The automobile industry dominates Michigan and there’s a real chance that the entire Big Three (GM, Ford, and Chrysler) will declare bankruptcy. There’s even a higher risk of huge job losses as these companies are going to have to restructure. Meanwhile, the government in Michigan raises taxes on all businesses—I’m sure that’s attracting lots of businesses to Michigan….

Nevada has hit a downturn, too. But there’s a big difference between Nevada and California. The legislature in the Silver State and Nevada’s Governor have reached an agreement on a short-term solution (though there appears to be some smoke and mirrors with that). And Democrats there appear to have some sense of fiscal reality. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas), Nevada Senate Majority Leader told AP, “All of the options are very difficult choices…They hurt Nevada citizens in different ways, and none of the options are good ones. But we have to balance this budget in the short term.”

New Jersey has a huge crisis with its pension plan. “New Jersey’s pension fund has lost more than $23 billion this year, dropping to its lowest level since 2003 as a collapsing financial market battered its investments, a new state report shows…The latest losses — nearly $9 billion in October, and another $3 billion so far this month — mean the fund is now worth $57.8 billion, or less than half the $118 billion in benefits it is due to pay out over time.” New Jersey’s pension plan expects an 8.25% return in 2009 and one commentator bluntly said, “That simply is not going to happen.”

Indeed, pension problems are likely occurring in many states. New Jersey invested in the market. That’s great during upturns but not so good during downturns. How many other pension bombs are out there? I’m sure there are plenty.

It’s always better to confront your problems now than to wait until later. At least in Nevada they appear to be doing that. Here in California and in the swamplands of New Jersey the blinders remain on.

Good Summary of Hyatt Case

Wednesday, August 20th, 2008

The Las Vegas Review-Journal has published an excellent summary of the Gilbert Hyatt case and judgments.

Mark Hutchison, Mr. Hyatt’s lead attorney, believes that the Franchise Tax Board will appeal the case. (I agree with him that the case will be appealed.) He’s quoted by the Review-Journal,

[The verdict] sends a clear message that government abuse and over-reaching will not be tolerated by Nevada citizens…I think the message is: If you are going to audit Nevada residents, you had better do so in a fair and impartial manner and not be results-oriented in seeking to grab money from Nevada residents.

Mr. Hyatt was also interviewed by the Review-Journal, and noted that the FTB’s original claim against him (that he was a California resident beyond September 1991) will be reviewed by the California Board of Equalization within two years.

My thanks to reader Darren Hankel to alerting me to this article.

$396.08 Million…and the Meter Is Still Running

Sunday, August 17th, 2008

A Las Vegas jury told California’s Franchise Tax Board in no uncertain terms that the FTB’s conduct towards Gilbert Hyatt was reprehensible. I had speculated that the jury would award Mr. Hyatt $250 million in punitive damages; that was exactly how much he received.

Mr. Hyatt had accused the FTB of several torts, including invasion of privacy, outrageous conduct, abuse of process, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Earlier, the same jury had awarded $138.8 million in actual damages.

Bill Leonard, a member of California’s Board of Equalization, said that the FTB spent $8.8 million fighting this case to date. If we add that, the $138.8 million of actual damages awarded earlier, and the punitive damages, the total is $396.08 million. Meanwhile, California has yet to receive any of the $7.4 million it assessed Mr. Hyatt (which is now nearly $50 million including penalties and interest). Mr. Hyatt is still fighting that decision.

Interestingly I could only find one news report on this story (the Sacramento Bee story I’ve linked to)—a story that is perhaps one of the most significant tax stories of the year. Mr. Hyatt’s lead counsel, Mark Hutchison, told the Bee, “Government agencies should pause and reflect on the significance of this verdict.” Mr. Hyatt noted, “[I hope] this will prevent other taxpayers from going through the same nightmare that I have had to endure for over a decade.”

The Bee story quotes the FTB’s former lead auditor, Brian Toman: “As far as I know, and I’ve been around a long time, there has never been an award of tort damages against the Franchise Tax Board in any kind of audit.” Well, there’s a good reason for that—Californians cannot sue the FTB for tort damages. California law grants state agencies sovereign immunity from lawsuits such as Mr. Hyatt’s (§860.2 of the Government Code). As noted in my previous post, Mr. Hyatt was able to sue because the actions the FTB took occurred in Nevada.

I fully expect the FTB to appeal the decision though officially no decision has been made. Interest will accrue to Mr. Hyatt during any appeal, so the total could easily exceed half a billion dollars. In the meantime it will be interesting to see if the FTB auditors realize that there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed.