What a Drag

A successful entrepreneur and life-long drag racing afficianado starts a drag racing business. The business isn’t profitable. The records, according to the entrepreneur, went down the drain when Hurricane Katrina destroyed their facility. The IRS alleges that the whole thing is a hobby, so the expenses are subject to the hobby loss rules, and the taxpayer owes a whole lot of money (and penalties) to the IRS. The Tax Court is left to decide whether the entrepreneur he had an expensive hobby or just a very unprofitable business.

Christopher Johnson is a successful entrepreneur who has always enjoyed drag racing. He decided back in 2003 to start his own drag racing business. Automobile racing in all forms is very expensive; Mr. Johnson had expenses in 2003 – 2005 of $186,282, $221,672, and $154,335. During the same years revenue grew from $1,500 to $2,318 to $3,154. It was no surprise that the IRS selected Mr. Johnson’s return for examination.

One of the things I note to my clients is the need to keep good records. That posed a problem for the petitioners (Mr. Johnson and his wife):

At trial petitioners failed to produce any primary records in relation to CJ Racing for the tax years at issue. Instead, petitioners produced secondary materials in the form of bank and credit card statements in an attempt to substantiate the deductions claimed on their return. Petitioners contend that because the loss of primary documentation was due to the extensive damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, and because they attempted to reconstruct those records from secondary sources, they should be deemed to have met the requirements of section 7491(a). The Court disagrees. While petitioners made an effort to reconstruct their expenses from secondary records, those records were incomplete and inconclusive. Said records were only bolstered and supplemented by the self-serving testimony of Mr. Johnson.

If you live in an area where a natural disaster might hit, consider what would happen if your records were destroyed. What happens if there’s a fire in your building, or your city is hit by a hurricane/tornado/earthquake/whatever? We’ve gone to scanning everything, and keeping backups in multiple locations. It’s not foolproof–the Mayans allegedly predict that this effort is useless come this December–but it leaves me feeling that should something happen to my office, I’ll be able to reconstruct everything. But I digress….

The Hobby Loss rules (Section 183 of the Tax Code) only allow deductions to the extent of income, and then only as a miscellaneous itemized deduction. The key question that must be answered is whether or not, “…the taxpayer is engaged in the activity with the actual and honest objective of making a profit.” A nine-factor test is used.

The first factor is the manner in which the activity is carried on:

The Court has held that a lack of profit motive is indicated where a taxpayer fails to create a business plan or formal budget, fails to estimate income and practice cost control, and fails to maintain a separate bank account for the activity…Specific to the field of drag racing, the Court has also held that a lack of a bona fide profit objective is indicated where the taxpayer fails to procure a substantial sponsorship for his racing endeavor…At trial petitioners did not introduce any evidence to show that they ever maintained complete and accurate books or created a formal budget for CJ Racing either before or after the hurricane. There is similarly no evidence to suggest that petitioners took any measures to implement any accounting controls or operation methods that would be consistent with an intent to increase profitability. Petitioners admitted that they never formulated an actual business plan for CJ Racing. Additionally, it is clear that petitioners did not maintain a separate bank or credit account for CJ Racing. [Citations omitted.]

Add in no sponsorships and things looked to the Court like this was a hobby.

I’d like to say that there were factors favoring the petitioners…but there weren’t. One factor was held to be neutral. First impressions mean a lot, and it appears the impression the taxpayer made wasn’t positive.

There was another issue in this case: The returns were filed late. You are allowed to file returns late if you have “reasonable cause.” And definitely a hurricane that blows away all of your records would be such a reasonable cause. The years at issue were 2003-2005. One issue was that Hurricane Katrina struck in August of 2005, after the 2003 and 2004 returns were due. The petitioners lost that argument. They did win the argument for 2005, however: That return was due in 2006 and it’s quite reasonable to assume that the hurricane caused the delay.

Is it possible that Mr. Johnson truly had a profit motive? Definitely. Unfortunately for him, he didn’t run his drag racing like a business. If you are starting a business similar to this, read this case and do things differently than Mr. Johnson. Write a business plan, have a separate bank account, and keep good records! Trust me, you’ll be happy you did.

Case: Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2012-231

Posted in Tax Court | Tagged , | 1 Comment

While I Was Out: TIGTA Assails IRS’s ITIN Management and Did Harry Reid Violate the Law?

My vacation is over, and that’s not a good thing (for me). While I was enjoying my time off, our Congresscritters remain in a bickering mood. A close election–and this year’s presidential race will likely be one such race–means that neither side wants to give. Who cares about all those expiring tax laws at year-end, or the AMT patch….

Meanwhile, the Taxgirl (Kelly Phillips Erb) has a post regarding Senator Harry Reid’s remarks about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s taxes. A CPA is claiming that Senator Reid’s remarks are illegal. As a Nevadan, the remarks appear distasteful. IRS Commissioner Shulman, I suppose, will have to decide whether to forward the case to the Department of Justice. And given that Senator Reid is a Democrat, the chance of any prosecution is the same as it snowing today in Las Vegas (it’s 101 F right now).

Meanwhile, TIGTA (the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Adminstration) released a report that’s very critical on the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) program. From the Highlights of the report:

This audit was initiated because TIGTA received IRS employee complaints referred from members of Congress alleging that IRS management responsible for overseeing the ITIN operation was encouraging employees to assign ITINs to applicants when the ITIN application was fraudulent…

TIGTA substantiated many of the allegations set forth in the IRS employees’ complaints. The complaints alleged that IRS management is not concerned with addressing questionable applications and is interested only in the volume of applications that can be processed, regardless of whether they are fraudulent.

The audit found that the ITIN application review and verification process is so deficient that there is no assurance that ITINs are not being assigned to individuals submitting questionable applications. Because of lax documentation requirements to obtain an ITIN, tax fraud can go undetected.

Ouch. This report is absolutely scathing. The IRS has “Eliminated successful processes used to identify questionable ITIN application fraud patterns and schemes.” There’s plenty more, and the entire report should be read. Reuters has a report on it, too.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , , | Comments Off on While I Was Out: TIGTA Assails IRS’s ITIN Management and Did Harry Reid Violate the Law?

Bad News for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries (and Espcially for the Vapor Room)

Yet another important case came up while I am on vacation. Martin Olive operates the Vapor Room, a medical marijuana dispensary in California. He was audited, and the IRS held:

– That the dispensary underreported gross receipts;
– Could only deduct a small fraction of the claimed gross receipts;
– Couldn’t deduct any of the business expenses; and
– Was liable for the accuracy-related penalty.

Mr. Olive took his case to the Tax Court, and the Court made a full decision today (which serves as a precedent). And it’s not good news for the medical marijuana industry in California (or elsewhere).

First, let’s give the (somewhat) good news. The Court held that the Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) could be deducted where proven. But the petitioner (Mr. Olive) conducted his business in cash (rather than checks), and didn’t keep good records. Mr. Olive stated that the medical marijuana industry, “shun[s] formal ‘substantiation’ in the form of receipts.” That may be true, but:

The substantiation rules require a taxpayer to maintain sufficient reliable records to allow the Commissioner to verify the taxpayer’s income and expenditures…Neither Congress nor the Commissioner has prescribed a rule stating that a medical marijuana dispensary may meet that substantiation requirement merely by maintaining a self-prepared ledger listing the amounts and general categories of its expenditures. It is not this Court’s role to prescribe the special substantiation rule that petitioner desires for medical marijuana dispensaries and we decline to do so.

Still, the Court did allow an estimated COGS of just over 70% of gross receipts.

After that, the news was not good for the dispensary. First, the cash receipts were understated. The ledgers used had omissions, and the Court believed that the IRS’s calculated additional receipts were accurate.

Second, we turn to the “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. Most taxpayers can deduct these. However, Section 280E of the Tax Code prohibits deducting expenses for a trade or business that consists of trafficking in controlled substances in violation of federal law. “We have previously held, and the parties agree, that medical marijuana is a controlled substance under section 280E.”

Petitioner argues that he may deduct the Vapor Room’s expenses notwithstanding section 280E because, he claims, the Vapor Room’s business did not consist of the illegal trafficking in a controlled substance. He argues that the illegal trafficking in controlled substances is the only activity covered by section 280E. We disagree that section 280E is that narrow and does not apply here. We therefore reject petitioner’s contention that section 280E does not apply because the Vapor Room was a legitimate operation under California law. We have previously held that a California medical marijuana dispensary’s dispensing of medical marijuana pursuant to the CCUA was “trafficking” within the meaning of section 280E. See CHAMP, 128 T.C. at 182-183. That holding applies here with full force…

Congress in section 280E has set an illegality under Federal law as one trigger to preclude a taxpayer from deducting expenses incurred in a medical marijuana dispensary business. This is true even if the business is legal under State law.

Mr. Olive attempted to show his business had two components (providing medical marijuana and ‘caregiving’), but the Tax Court didn’t buy that. There were no revenues for caregiving, and the Tax Court,

…perceive[d] his claim now that the Vapor Room actually consists of two businesses as simply an after-the-fact attempt to artificially equate the Vapor Room with the medical marijuana dispensary in CHAMP so as to avoid the disallowance of all of the Vapor Room’s expenses under section 280E.

This decision does not bode well at all for the medical marijuana cases that are moving through audit and the Tax Court. This is a full precedential case and I don’t see the Tax Court changing its view on the issues in the future.

Case: Olive v. Commissioner, 139 T.C. No. 2

Posted in Tax Court | Tagged | 2 Comments

DOJ Settles Civil Claims Against PokerStars & Full Tilt Poker; Full Tilt Balances to be Refunded to US Players; Settlement with Absolute/UB Also Referenced

News came out this morning that the long-rumored deal that would have PokerStars acquire Full Tilt Poker, agree to pay the DOJ $731 million (the rumored amount was $750 million), and pay back players while settling the civil charges it faced came to fruition this morning. Press releases were issued by Full Tilt and PokerStars announcing the deal; a press release will be issued later today by the DOJ. The obvious questions are:

– Who will be repaying the Full Tilt players?
– When will players be repaid?
– What does this mean for US players’ taxes?
– Will PokerStars (or Full Tilt Poker) be returning to the US anytime soon?

Who will be repaying the Full Tilt players?
If you are outside of the US, PokerStars will repay you. A fund of $184 million will be set up, and withdrawals will begin within 90 days of the completion of the transaction — likely by the end of October.

If you are within the United States, you will be repaid by the Department of Justice (the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York). You will have to apply through remission with the DOJ to be repaid. I assume (but am not certain) that the FTP site or client will be reopened so that US players can look to see what their balances were. A fund of $150 million will be set up for the repayment. The exact process will likely be revealed in the press release to come from the DOJ, but here is a sample remission petition (Hat Tip: Taxdood).

When will players be repaid? If you are outside of the US (and this is determined by your residence on June 29, 2011), you likely will be repaid no later than November. If you are in the US, this remains unclear, but I’d expect you to be repaid before Christmas.

What does this mean for US players’ taxes? That income that wasn’t constructively received in 2011 will likely be constructively received in 2012. That means you will need to report your Full Tilt income on your 2012 tax returns. You may need to adjust your fourth quarter 2012 estimated payment.

Will PokerStars (or Full Tilt Poker) be returning to the US anytime soon? No. While the agreement specifically allows for PokerStars to apply for licenses if and when online poker is legalized in the US, the criminal charges against PokerStars were not settled. As long as PokerStars (or any of its owners, executives, or managers) faces a criminal indictment, they will not be licensed in the US.

Most gaming licensing boards are extremely reticent about licensing anyone with any sort of criminal past. If PokerStars were found innocent of the criminal charges against it, then they would have a chance of obtaining a US (or state) license. Until then, it is extremely doubtful that US players will see PokerStars (or Full Tilt Poker) back in the United States.


Buried in the DOJ Press release is the following:

In a related matter, the U.S. Attorney’s office also filed a motion requesting that the Court enter a settlement agreement reached with Absolute Poker/Ultimate Bet that requires the company to forfeit all of its assets (the “Absolute Assets”) in order to fully resolve this action. The motion also requests that the Government be permitted to liquidate the Absolute Assets, with the net proceeds of that sale to be held pending the resolution of claims filed by other parties who have asserted an ownership interest in the Absolute Assets.

It appears that US players can also apply for remission on their AP/UB balances. However, it is likely they’ll receive pennies on the dollar (or perhaps a penny on the dollar) as it is unlikely the assets of AP/UB have much value.


Once the DOJ announces the remission process, I’ll post about that. I now return to my scheduled vacation.

UPDATES: It’s remission, not rendition; the date being used to determine US (or rest of the world) residency is June 29, 2011, not April 14, 2011.

Posted in Gambling | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Vacation

It’s time for my annual vacation. If something earth-shattering in the tax world happens while I’m relaxing, I’ll take time out to post on it. Otherwise, enjoy the fine bloggers listed in the blogroll on the right. I’ll be back on Thursday, August 9th.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Vacation

El Monte Considering Sugary Drink Tax

Many California municipalities face budget issues. One of these cities is El Monte, in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles. El Monte is looking at a $7 million deficit when a local sales tax expires in 2014. So is the city looking at cutting costs? Well, perhaps. But it’s doing the typical California thing: Asking for more tax revenue.

El Monte has declared a fiscal emergency. That allows for an off-year election this November. And the plan is to have on the ballot a measure asking for a penny-an-ounce tax on “sugary drinks.” So if you purchase a 32-ounce soda, you will owe an additional $0.32 in tax. Needless to say, the California-Nevada Soft Drink Association isn’t thrilled with the idea.

Personally, I think El Monte should consider the only real solution to the problem: Cuts in salaries. As this article in the Los Angeles Times mentions, El Monte has cut 100 employees, reduced salaries for city council members, and deferred wages for other employees. They should really look at cutting even more.

If El Monte voters approve the measure, this will be a huge boon…for neighboring cities such as South El Monte, Rosemead, and West Covina. Shoppers will end up heading to supermarkets and stores in neighboring towns to purchase their soft drinks. Consider someone who drinks 64 ounces of soda a day. He or she could save $4.48 a week by going to a neighboring town. And it’s likely those individuals won’t just buy their soda in West Covina; they’ll also get all their other groceries. That will lower El Monte’s sales tax revenues.

Yes, soda isn’t the most healthy of drinks. That said, using taxes to legislate morality is not a good thing. In this case, it will likely backfire on all concerned. Hopefully, El Monte voters will be wise enough to vote down this tax.

Posted in California | Tagged | Comments Off on El Monte Considering Sugary Drink Tax

Sales Factor to be Weighed Equally in California

For business entities operating in multiple states, apportioning corporate tax can be difficult. Every state has different rules. This is especially true when dealing with California.

While California has a “single-factor” (sales) apportionment that can be used, there’s also a “three-factor” apportionment that uses sales, property and payroll. Back in 1993 the legislature said that when using the three-factor apportionment, the weight of the sales factor is doubled.

There’s a problem with that, though: California signed a multi-state compact that said the factors would be weighed equally. Several businesses sued the state. While the lawsuit was thrown out at the district court level, the 1st District Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that the businesses, led by Gillette, were correct. California must abide by the agreement because to not do so would be to break a contract.

I expect the Franchise Tax Board to appeal the case to the California Supreme Court.

Posted in California | Tagged | 2 Comments

The Grass Isn’t Always Greener on the Other Side

Here in Las Vegas the local water district really, really tries for everyone to remove their lawns and replace them with “water-friendly” landscapes. Of course, this isn’t an issue in most of the US where rain happens far more frequently than here in the desert.

Most homeowners use sod for their lawns. It’s a big business (except where I live). Adrian Sod has been providing sod to the Sioux Falls, South Dakota region since 1966. Back in 2010, the owner of Adrian Sod, Jerome Adrian, allegedly told an IRS agent that he had no income because everything was in trusts. The IRS is alleging that those trusts are shams. The Department of Justice filed a 45-count indictment against Mr. Adrian, his son, and the ‘trustee’ of the trusts alleging conspiracy and various other tax evasion charges.

When I said sod is a big business I meant it. Allegedly Mr. Adrian has over $5 million in assets. Supposedly Mr. Adrian stopped paying taxes in 2001, allegedly started to fund the phony trusts in 2002, and sent a letter to the IRS in 2002 stating he was no longer a citizen. While it is possible to become an expatriate, it is not possible to do it in the manner that Mr. Adrian has apparently done.

Mr. Adrian is facing a lengthy term at ClubFed if found guilty on all the charges.

Posted in Tax Evasion | 1 Comment

Two Sets of Books Aren’t Better than One

I’ve found that the one set of books I keep is plenty. Why would I want (or need) a second set of records showing my income and expenses? Of course, I don’t have a Bozo mind, and I don’t think I need to duplicate my efforts. (One time where you should keep a second set of books is when you change computer software. You want to run both software to make sure they both come up with the same amount of income.)

From New York comes word of a group of grocery stores in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut that used two sets of books. They weren’t changing computer systems, though. Instead, the first set of books showed their accurate income and expenses; the second set of books allegedly didn’t include all of the income. The owners allegedly skimmed cash and used it for their personal use according to this story. The tax returns allegedly used the books that didn’t show all the income. Unfortunately for those allegedly involved in the scheme, the IRS apparently discovered that two sets of books were being kept for all the wrong reasons. Nine individuals face various charges including tax evasion, conspiracy, and obstructing the IRS. Given that the alleged tax fraud involves $56 million, those charged are looking at lengthy stays at ClubFed if convicted.

For one of those indicted, Adam Arici, this isn’t his first indictment. Mr. Arici and his attorney were indicted last December for allegedly violating the US-Cuba trade embargo and for witness tampering.

Posted in Tax Fraud | 1 Comment

Attorney Gets Tax Lien, Then Allegedly Commits Tax Evasion

Lee Gottesman is a bankruptcy attorney in Toms River, New Jersey. He is also facing a heap load of tax troubles for some of the usual reasons.

According to the Department of Justice, Mr. Gottesman allegedly created a sub account within his attorney trust account after he had a tax lien filed against him in 2002. That account was for his wife…but his wife supposedly wasn’t a client. Then he allegedly ran all his expenses — both personal and business — through that sub-account. Adding to his troubles, from 2006 through 2009 Mr. Gottesman supposedly didn’t file tax returns…while allegedly earning more than $400,000. According to the indictment, Mr. Gottesman had a CPA prepare tax returns; he just couldn’t be bothered to file them. That’s tax evasion. The indictment noted that Gottesman, “…created and began to use the Sub Account to deposit business income and to pay personal expenses after the 2002 Tax Lien due to his belief that the IRS could not levy the Gottesman [Attorney Trust Account].”

But the reason he likely got into trouble is something that I’ve mentioned over and over again: Withholding payroll taxes but not remitting them. If you do this, you will be investigated. The indictment states, “He [Gottesman] knew that he was required to pay payroll taxes to the IRS, but that he had not.” Given that he allegedly collected (withheld) taxes on his employees but didn’t remit them, that’s a huge mistake. That’s another 15 counts to go with the four counts of tax evasion.

I look at the press release and the indictment and have to wonder. An attorney knows (or should know) the rules regarding taxes. He apparently had good advice from a CPA. He practices in bankruptcy, so he knows that there are alternatives to simply not filing and paying taxes. Yet Mr. Gottesman allegedly committed numerous felonies–and apparently admitted doing so to investigators.

Posted in New Jersey, Payroll Taxes, Tax Evasion | Comments Off on Attorney Gets Tax Lien, Then Allegedly Commits Tax Evasion