Taxable Talk

With Tax Day fast approaching it’s time to examine yet another Bozo method of courting disaster. And it doesn’t, on the surface, seem to be a Bozo method. After all, this organization has the motto, Neither rain nor snow nor gloom of night can stay these messengers about their duty.

Well, that’s not really the Postal Service’s motto. It’s just the inscription on the General Post Office in New York (at 8th Avenue and 33rd Street).

So assume you have a lengthy, difficult return. You’ve paid a professional good money to get it done. You go to the Post Office, put proper postage on it, dump it in the slot (before April 17th), and you’ve just committed a Bozo act.

If you use the Postal Service to mail your tax returns, spend the extra money for certified mail. For $2.95 you can purchase certified mail. Yes, you will have to stand in a line (or you can use the automated machines in many post offices), but you now have a receipt that verifies that you have mailed your return.

About three years ago one of my clients saved $2.42 (I think that was the cost of a certified mail piece then) and sent his return in with a $0.37 stamp. It never made it. He ended up paying nearly $1000 in penalties and interest…but he did save $2.42.

Don’t be a Bozo. E-File (and you don’t have to worry at all about the Post Office), or spend the $2.95! And you can go all out and get a return receipt, too, for just $2.35 (though you can now track certified mail online; remember, though to print the tracking documentation as the Postal Service only stores that data for a limited period of time). For another $1.15, you can get the postal service to e-mail the confirmation that the IRS got the return. There’s a reason every client letter notes, “using certified mail, return receipt requested.”

Another repeat, but it again popped up this past weekend.

It’s springtime, and that means weddings. With weddings comes changes in tax status. Your marital status on December 31st determines your marital status for the year. If you are married, you file as Married Filing Jointly or Married Filing Separately. (In some rare cases, if you’re married you can file as Head of Household.) But you can’t file as single. Likewise, if you’re single you can’t file as married.

Perhaps it’s something in the water, but this year Aaron and I have seen multiple cases of individuals who have ignored that marriage license and filed as single if married. There’s a good reason for that, of course: They save on taxes. A big issue is rental real estate: If you’re actively involved in rental real estate you get to take losses of up to $25,000. But there’s an income cap (the deduction begins to phase out at an income of $100,000 and completely phases out at $150,000). This particular deduction is neither indexed for inflation nor does it vary if you are single or married.

There’s a problem taking deductions you’re not entitled to: tax evasion. It’s a Bozo act to claim things you’re not entitled to.

Marriage has its ups and downs. Claiming you’re single on your tax return when you’re not will in the long-run cause you nothing but downs.

We’re running some repeats, but there is some new Bozo material coming. It’s just that people keep trying the same things over and over again.

It’s tough to avoid the tax system. There are currency transaction reports (cash transactions of $10,000 or more) and suspicious activity reports (theoretically can be done on any transaction, but usually starts at $3,000 or more) done with cash. Businesses must send out 1099s on payments of $600 or more to individuals. Barter organizations must send out 1099s.

But that doesn’t stop the Bozo contingent. “They’ll never catch me,” they believe. Until the IRS or the Franchise Tax Board (substitute your state tax agency if you’re not in California) knocks on their door. There’s no statute of limitations if you don’t file.

Paying taxes isn’t fun. Avoiding the system and living on the edge may give you a thrill, but if you get caught you’ll be given a bill…and possibly a trip to ClubFed.

It’s time for our annual rundown of Bozo Tax Tips, strategies that you really, really, really shouldn’t try. But somewhere, somehow, someone will try these. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

From Joe Kristan of Roth Tax Updates I first heard about the law firm that had no employees. Now, I can imagine a small firm of, say, three or four partners, with no clerical staff as a possibility. However, having dealt with enough attorneys there are always secretaries, paralegals, clerks, and junior lawyers because most clients don’t way to pay $400 an hour for typing.

But the firm that Joe wrote about is the Donald Cave Law Firm in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. About a year ago the firm found itself in Tax Court claiming that the three associates of the firm weren’t employees because the owner, Mr. Cave, alleged he didn’t have enough control over them. Now, do you really believe that a senior lawyer at any firm would allow junior attorneys to do their own thing? Of course not, and the Tax Court didn’t believe it either.

That wasn’t the end of the story, though. The firm appealed and their fate at the Fifth Circuit was, well, what you would expect.

Finally, with respect to the law clerk, Michael Matthews, the record shows that Donald Cave hired Matthews and exercised complete control over the assignment of Matthews’ work for the Firm. Although Matthews also worked for other lawyers and law firms, providing services to multiple employers does not necessitate treatment as an independent contractor…Matthews was paid a salary by the Cave Law Firm of approximately $1250 every two weeks, which amounts to $30,000 per year, regardless of the amount of work he performed during that time period. Contrary to the Firm’s suggestion, Matthews was not paid a minimal amount for essentially piecework. Instead, he entered into a verbal contract with Donald Cave and the Firm for a fixed sum to provide services at the direction of Cave, and there was no evidence that he could reject any work he did not wish to perform. Furthermore, Matthews could neither increase his profit through his own skill and initiative, nor would he suffer the risk of any losses. Matthews also made no investment in the facilities because the Firm provided him with the amenities needed to complete his work.

Can you really imagine that a clerk at a law firm isn’t an employee? I can’t, and neither could the judges at the Fifth Circuit.

The point of this is to be careful about who you claim are independent contractors. If you give John a research project, and don’t control his activities, and he’s working in another state on his own, that truly sounds like an independent contractor. However, if John’s working in your office, and your supervising his every move, etc., trying to claim he’s an independent contractor when he’s really an employee can lead to a big heartache.

Additionally, some states are far tougher on the independent contractor/employee decision than the IRS. Indeed, my old homestead of California is probably the most difficult state in the country to have independent contractors. California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) has an excellent publication on this issue (EDD Publication 38). There’s even a help line you can call.

So if you really have independent contractors, great. But if you’re a law firm and you really, really think that your secretary and the filing clerk are independent contractors you are committing a Bozo act.