If You’re a Sole Proprietor, Get an EIN…Now!

Most business entities have an Employer Identification Number (EIN) that they use. An EIN is for a business what a social security number is for an individual: It’s their taxpayer identification number. Some sole proprietors must have EINs (if they have employees, have withholding, or certain other situations). The IRS’s official position is that most sole proprietors do not need an EIN.

I beg to differ.

The problem today is identity theft. It’s rampant, and sometimes involves actual theft of your personal information from files. There’s a story out of Miami of a police officer stealing identities; there have been cases where hospital employees and others steal social security numbers. What’s to stop an employee of a business from stealing social security numbers? Nothing but most individuals’ inherent honesty. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s enough today.

If you are a sole proprietor and you will have to complete a Form W-9 (giving your social security number to someone) or you issue Form 1099s, you should be using an EIN instead of your social security number. There is no cost to obtain an EIN (except about ten minutes of time). You can do so online at the IRS’s website.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 1 Comment

When the IRS Changes the Rules Midstream in a Legal Matter…

Janet Novack has an interesting post in Forbes. It revolves around the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program.

The idea behind the OVDP is that a taxpayer who the IRS doesn’t know about who has (for example) secreted away funds in a foreign bank account (or accounts) overseas comes clean. He files amended tax returns, FBARs, pays a fine but does not face criminal prosecution. As Ms. Novack notes, the way it normally works is that a tax attorney will send a name and social security number to the IRS; the IRS will tell the attorney to go ahead or not to. The client (through the attorney) sends the IRS a detailed questionnaire; the IRS then sends a formal letter approving entry into the program.

All should go smoothly then, right?

Well, apparently not so for certain individuals who used Bank Leumi. The IRS has apparently sent rescission letters to some individuals who used Bank Leumi for hiding their funds. A tax attorney who I’ve met and highly respect, Robert McKenzie, is quoted in the piece, “I’m upset that I gave advice, relying on the government letter, only to find I couldn’t rely on my government to do it properly.’’

I suspect there will be significant legal ramifications from this. Consider if you are one of those individuals, and you are subsequently a subject of a criminal prosecution. I’m certain an argument will be made that the IRS cannot rescind the acceptance; that constitutes some form of “double jeopardy.” I’m not an attorney, so once again I’m sailing into waters I should avoid (well, I’m definitely not giving legal advice here). At minimum, how many tax attorneys are going to trust the IRS the next time?

When I see Mr. McKenzie later this year (he’s usually an instructor at a continuing education seminar I take), I’ll ask him about this. I suspect the words I hear will be the ones he uses to excoriate White Sox fans.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Who Knew? Iowa Has a $50 Loss Limit on Fantasy Sports

As I end a very long work day, I notice that Jason Dinesen sent out a tweet that an Iowa legislator is attempting to increase the daily fantasy sports betting, er, skill, well gambling (in Iowa) limit from $50 to $500. In Iowa, fantasy sports are currently considered a form of gambling. As many states begin to consider online gambling, it will be interesting to see what kind of patchwork of rules we end up with.

Posted in Gambling, Iowa | Tagged | Comments Off on Who Knew? Iowa Has a $50 Loss Limit on Fantasy Sports

Did the IRS Write Law?

I received a special e-news for tax professionals. It states the following:

Federal budget sequestration has resulted in required cuts to certain credits and awards, effective March 1. These required cuts include a reduction to the refundable portion of the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit for certain small tax-exempt employers, a reduction in award payments to whistleblowers, and a reduction to refundable credits applicable to certain qualified bonds.

I have a serious questions for anyone who knows: Is this legal?

I am unaware of anything in the Tax Code that allows the IRS to change the rate of tax credits. I may be misreading the law (I am not an attorney), but my understanding is that, for example, whistleblower awards are set by statute. If I’m correct, the IRS cannot change the rate of credits.

Unfortunately, this is the height of tax season so my time to dig through the minutia of the Code is nonexistent. If anyone can cite chapter and verse (or I should say, Code Section) that allows the IRS to do this, please let me know.

Here’s what the IRS is using as justification for the whistleblower change:

Pursuant to the requirements of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, certain automatic reductions will take place as of March 1, 2013. These required reductions include a reduction to awards paid under Internal Revenue Code section 7623. As a result, the sequestration reduction is applied to award payments to whistleblowers issued pursuant to Internal Revenue Code section 7623 on or after March 1, 2013. The sequestration reduction rate will be applied until the end of the fiscal year (September 30, 2013) or intervening Congressional action, at which time the sequestration rate is subject to change. As determined by the Department in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, whistleblower payments subject to the reduction will be reduced by 8.7%. The reduction required by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, will be applied after the Whistleblower Office determines the amount of collected proceeds and the applicable award percentage under section 7623. The Whistleblower Office will then compute the award that would have been paid, and then apply the reduction. Whistleblowers will be advised of the reduction in correspondence from the Whistleblower Office concerning a proposed award amount and an award determination.

The other changes have similar verbiage. I suspect the IRS has erred.

Posted in IRS | 1 Comment

IRS Opens for All

The IRS announced this morning that they are now accepting all forms for all returns. All of those delayed forms (including passive activities and a host of tax credit forms) are now being supported through both electronic filing and paper filing. I received this news from my software provider; I will update this post later with a link to the IRS announcement (when it is available).

UPDATE: Link to IRS Announcement

Posted in IRS | 1 Comment

A Sure-Fire Way to Get Indicted

There are many ways to get in trouble with tax law. As I have said in the past, if you want to get indicted it’s a bit harder. It helps to be a celebrity, have a very large tax debt, not report large amounts of funds in foreign financial accounts, or abscond with trust fund taxes. I need to add another item to that list: File liens against IRS employees who are investigating you.

Mark Ellis of Bend, Oregon is accused of filing four refund claims wherein he asked for almost $900,000. These refund claims were allegedly based on an illegal debt termination program attempting to cancel his (and others’) debts. He did receive a $311,459 refund; the others didn’t make it to him. No matter, filing a false claim for refund is a crime.

Mr. Ellis, though, was apparently upset with the IRS employees who were investigating him. Did he hire an attorney so he could negotiate with the IRS? Of course not. He filed liens against two IRS employees who were investigating him and one Timothy Geithner. Mr. Geithner is the former Secretary of the Treasury. Consider what happens when you file a lien against an IRS criminal investigator (Special Agent). He likely knows an assistant US Attorney who can make the lien vanish (and all those liens did vanish). That same assistant US Attorney has the power to indict. I think the chance of an indictment after such an act goes from probable to a certainty. And filing false liens is a crime, too.

Whether Mr. Ellis is guilty or innocent won’t be known until his trial. What is certain today is that he is a candidate for the Bozo Tax Offender of the Year for 2013.

Posted in Tax Fraud | 1 Comment

It’s 6,219 Miles from Calumet City to Amman

What does Calumet City, Illinois have in common with Amman, Jordan? To be honest, not very much at all. However, this story begins in Calumet City and takes a detour through Amman before ending in Chicago (with a probable side trip to Springfield, Illinois).

Samer Farhan owns a gas station in Calumet City, along with another in Chicago. Gas stations have to collect lots of taxes: State sales tax, state gasoline tax, and federal gasoline tax. Of course, most people would prefer not paying taxes. Mr. Farhan is accused of taking this a bit too far on remitting others’ money that he collected.

Remember, when a business collects sales tax they become the agent of government. Like with employment trust fund taxes, sales tax agencies don’t like it when some of the money doesn’t end up where it belongs. Sales tax agencies regularly audit many businesses.

Mr. Farhan is accused of 28 counts of filing phony sales tax returns, two counts of mail fraud and five of money laundering. Mr. Farhan is alleged to have lowered the amount of sales so he didn’t have to pay nearly $1 million in sales taxes. That’s a lot of gasoline. However, he’s accused of going further–literally. Mr. Farhan allegedly took some of the profits of his scheme and sent them to a bank in Amman, Jordan; that money then supposedly returned to him. If proven, that’s money laundering. The Illinois Department of Revenue had the help of the US Secret Service in that aspect of the case.

Mr. Farhan will have a preliminary hearing later this month. If convicted on all charges, he’s looking at a lengthy term in prison (plus restitution).

Posted in Illinois, Sales Tax | Comments Off on It’s 6,219 Miles from Calumet City to Amman

There’s No Fraud Like Giant-Sized Fraud

When I read of a sentence that includes eight years at ClubFed and restitution of $190 million, that gets my interest. Donna Guerin is the former attorney who was sentenced yesterday in New York.

Ms. Guerin was an attorney who pleaded guilty last September for running a tax shelter scheme that allegedly created $7 billion in phony deductions leading to a $92 million loss to the government. The Justice Department’s press release has some interesting reading about the tax shelters that Ms. Guerin and others peddled.

Ms. Guerin was a principal in designing tax shelters called, “Short Sales,” “Short Options Strategy (SOS),” “Swaps,” and “HOMER” They sold these strategies to nearly 900 wealthy individuals, and the phony losses total over $6.5 billion. But what gets me is the pricing of the shelters and the legal opinion that the shelter was good:

In return for receiving a fee from tax shelter clients based on a percentage of their purported tax losses – usually 5% for ordinary losses and 4% for capital losses – GUERIN and others at J&G assisted clients in implementing all of the stages of the fraudulent tax shelters, including setting up bank accounts and entities such as corporations and partnerships. GUERIN and others at J&G [the law firm where she was a partner] also provided the tax shelter clients a “more likely than not” legal opinion from J&G.

Let’s count the red flags. First, except for amended returns, tax professionals are not supposed to charge based on the outcome of a return. If I prepare your return, I cannot say, “I’ll take x% of the refund as my fee.” That should have been a red flag to those involved.

Second, if you are looking at a purported tax shelter, is it wise to believe the authors of the shelter that all is well? If someone has truly come up with a method to turn, say, $100 million of income to $0 of tax, he or she would be more than willing to have an outside attorney bless the shelter. Indeed, if I ever can come up with such a shelter (an occurrence with about a 0% chance of happening), I’d want every attorney out there to give it thumbs up. There’s also the regulations under Circular 230 (which is how tax professionals are regulated); these dictate best practices and using reasonable factual efforts.

Finally, there’s the basic rule of economic substance. In order for a transaction to be considered having economic substance, the transaction needs to impact outside of federal income tax effects the economic substance of a taxpayer.

Are there legitimate tax shelters? Of course; one of the most basic is investing in something that loses money today but has a chance of making money tomorrow. Many wealthy individuals will become “angel investors.” They’ll invest in ten projects, hoping that one of those ten becomes hugely successful. The other nine become legitimate capital losses. There’s economic substance and real risk involved.

Most of the phony tax shelters I’ve read about invent purported trades and business entities that are will-o-the-wisps. That’s because it’s hard to make $100 million turn into a tax loss without real transactions occurring. But I digress….

For Ms. Guerin, she has eight years at ClubFed to think about her “relatively minor” (in the words of her attorney) involvement in, in the words of Judge William Pauley, “[A] tax shelter fraud consipracy [that] was breathtaking in its scope and in the damage it caused our nation…Ms. Guerin played a central role, she was not a mindless automaton.”

Posted in Tax Fraud | Tagged | Comments Off on There’s No Fraud Like Giant-Sized Fraud

News From California Regarding QSBS

Two pieces of news out of California regarding the Qualified Small Business Stock situation. For those who aren’t aware, a court last year ruled that California couldn’t discriminate against out-of-state Qualified Small Business Stock (QSB). The Franchise Tax Board interpreted that ruling to mean that for any open tax year, the state would challenge the QSB deductions for anyone who took it. For 2012 on, the California deduction was eliminated, so this is an issue impacting entrepreneurs for tax years 2008 through 2011.

The FTB announced today that they will begin sending Notices of Proposed Assessment (NPAs) in early April. The FTB has also established a simplified procedure to protest the NPAs and it’s clearly noted in their FAQ web page on this issue.

(As much as I think the FTB’s implementation of the Cutter decision is wrong, I want to give the FTB kudos to them for an easily understood webpage and instructions on this issue. I also want to thank them, especially Susan Maples (the FTB’s Tax Practitioner Liaison), for reaching out to the tax professional community in communicating the issues.)

Meanwhile, the tech community remains extremely displeased with the FTB’s actions. Brian Overstreet, the man who began sounding the alarm, has set up a new website on this issue. There’s a very anti-California article on Forbes.com that highlights this issue. Legal action is almost a certainty; many of these entrepreneurs have the deep pockets necessary to fight the FTB.

Posted in California | Tagged , | Comments Off on News From California Regarding QSBS

Important Court Ruling for Entities Owned by Californians Located Outside of California

Let’s say you have a business entity, Widgets, Inc. It’s a Nevada corporation; the corporation is located in Las Vegas. The business has no operations in California but it is a corporation with one owner who resides in California. However, the owner is not involved with day-to-day business; a manager in Las Vegas runs the business. The only officer of the corporation is a Nevadan, too. Does the corporation owe California taxes?

The Franchise Tax Board has said yes for years. Any business entity which is owned by a Californian is subject to California taxation. Earlier this month a court in Los Angeles said no.

As reported in Forbes, the facts weren’t in dispute, and mirror what I wrote above. Since all the evidence showed the company was in Nevada, run by Nevadans, Nevada was the commercial domicile of the company, not California. The company won.

Now, let’s get to the dark side of the case. The article in Forbes doesn’t mention the years in dispute. Unfortunately, the actual ruling does not appear to be available on the Internet. But I did find a predecessor ruling from the Board of Equalization that’s available. Let’s go through the hoops that Daniel V (the corporation in question) went through. From reading the BOE decision, I found that the years in dispute were 1997 and 1998.

Sometime after 1997 and 1998, the Franchise Tax Board sent notices to the company. The company then fought the notices through the FTB’s appeal process. (The dates on this aren’t available.) After losing at the FTB, the company paid some (probably most) of the taxes and penalties, and filed an appeal to the Board of Equalization. (The Board of Equalization hears appeals from the FTB.) The company lost in May 2008, paid the remaining taxes, penalties, and interest, and asked for a rehearing (that’s what I linked to above). That rehearing happened later (probably in late 2008), and the company lost again (the decision was likely not rendered until 2011). The entity then sued in Superior Court (March of 2011). The case was heard in November 2012. The company won…for now. I fully expect the FTB to appeal the decision (though there are reasons not to).

Consider also the FTB’s mentality. This case did go through the FTB appeals process, and the company lost. As far as the FTB is concerned, any business that can be loosely tied to California owes California taxes…period. The facts of this case definitely make one wonder about how the company lost at both the FTB and BOE. But I digress….

I expect an appeal because the FTB’s litigation strategy has been to appeal almost every case, whether they’re in the right or the wrong (see Gilbert Hyatt). Part of this is the FTB’s litigation strategy: To exhaust individuals thinking of suing the agency. It takes a lot of time and money to sue the FTB.

One reason not to appeal is because this case only stands as precedent for the one company involved. If the FTB appeals and loses, then this case is binding upon the FTB (to all businesses with a similar set of facts).

Finally, consider how long this case has festered. It’s been ten years (at least) and it’s likely still not done. It does take a lot of money to fight the FTB.

Posted in California | Tagged , | 1 Comment