The BOE Does Something Smart

One of my clients received a letter from the California Board of Equalization:

Our records of your qualified purchaser use tax account indicate that you have filed “zero returns” (no use tax to report) for three consecutive years. Therefore, this letter is to inform you that we are canceling your qualified purchaser use tax account….

My client was required to register for a use tax account as he had gross sales of over $100,000. He buys everything from retailers, so he’s never had a purchase subject to use tax. Yet he’s had to file use tax returns for the last three years.

Not anymore. The BOE has decided that California service businesses that have no purchases subject to use tax for three consecutive years will now not need to file use tax returns. Those returns are due on April 15th…a day tax professionals have something else to worry about.

That said, more and more jurisdictions are beginning to enforce use tax laws. We’re adding a form with our Organizers for 2011 regarding use tax as it’s clear where this is heading. Still, the BOE’s action is a ray of sunshine on the tax front.

Posted in California, Sales Tax | Comments Off on The BOE Does Something Smart

A Hockey Player, A Tax Refund, Two Thefts, and Fraud

Saku Koivu is a center for the Anaheim Ducks (they won in Minnesota last night,) and is a resident of Quebec. In September 2009 he received a tax refund of $140,899.04 from Quebec (Mr. Koivu used to play for the Montreal Canadiens). And that’s where the fun begins.

Someone stole that check from Mr. Koivu. That’s the first theft. That thief is unknown.

The person who stole the check goes to Go-Remit, a check cashing business in Côte-des-Neiges, Quebec. The former owner, David Nowak, thinks he’s dealing with an authorized agent of Mr. Koivu (the thief also has identity documents) and will cash the check. But he doesn’t keep $135,000 in his store, so he uses a third-party vendor to get the funds. He picks them up, and keeps them in a paper bag under the back seat of his car.

You’re a step ahead of me, right? Someone stole the bag containing the $135,000. That thief, too, hasn’t been found.

Meanwhile, what is Mr. Nowak to do? He decides to take small amounts from some of his clients to make up the $135,000.

Mr. Nowak’s fraud is discovered by the police after some of his clients think something is wrong. Mr. Nowak pleads guilty but gets a very lenient sentence of time served due to the unusual circumstances of the crime. He also is on probation for two years.

And I’ve only summarized the twists and turns of fate that move through this story.

News Story: La Presse (French)
Summary: Puck Daddy

Posted in Tax Fraud | Tagged | Comments Off on A Hockey Player, A Tax Refund, Two Thefts, and Fraud

Embezzler Forgets Line 21

Illegal activities. Income from illegal activities, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.

So states the IRS in Publication 17 (“Your Income Tax”) and the courts have upheld this. Of course, most people who commit one crime are more than willing to commit a second crime. One Bay Area woman is probably regretting this.

Ann Ray, aka Georgia Engelhart, worked for a family business in San Carlos (in the San Francisco Bay Area). She was their bookkeeper and a trusted employee. She was also an embezzler.

Ms. Ray began liberating funds in the 1980s, and it appears to have started out small. But it kept growing and growing, and by the mid 2000s the take each year was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It appears that not only did Ms. Ray have full access to the bank accounts, she also balanced the checkbooks. A standard practice is that the person who balances the bank accounts cannot sign checks in the accounts. But I digress….

Ms. Ray used the funds for personal items, from paying her credit card bills to living the good life on fancy vacations. Somehow, the IRS discovered that something was up, and IRS Criminal Investigations looked into the matter. They discovered the embezzlement, though they apparently could only show that Ms. Ray didn’t pay the taxes on the ill gotten gains. That, though, is a crime, and Ms. Ray pleaded guilty back in July to six counts of tax evasion. Yesterday, Ms. Ray was sentenced to 46 months at ClubFed.

If Ms. Ray had only remembered line 21, she would have been out $1.2 million of the $4.7 million she had embezzled, but would probably still be free. Now, she must also make restitution of the proceeds of her embezzlement and pay the federal government the tax due on the embezzlement.

Posted in Tax Evasion | Comments Off on Embezzler Forgets Line 21

Irene E-File Deadline is Halloween Morning

I just spoke with my software vendor and learned that the e-file deadline for those impacted by Hurricane Irene is 9am EDT on October 31st (6am PDT). Effectively, the deadline is Sunday night for me. As to why the IRS chose 9am instead of 5pm EDT, you’d have to ask them. Needless to say, if you are among those impacted by Irene or have clients who are impacted by Irene, you will need to file sooner rather than later.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on Irene E-File Deadline is Halloween Morning

A Chestnut Is in the Rough

Another week, two more individuals have been sued by the Department of Justice for allegedly promoting phony tax schemes. Rodney Chestnut and Nafeesah Hines are alleged to have found a unique way for you and I to obtain tax refunds: redemption. You see, there are supposedly secret tax accounts that you can get money out of just by filing phony Form 1099-A’s and 1099-OID’s.

I can’t tell you much more about this method, because it doesn’t exist. There are no secret tax accounts. This method (redemption) is as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Mr. Chestnut and Mr. Hines will have the joy of trying to find those secret accounts when they get their day in court. Good luck–they’re going to need it.

Posted in IRS, Scams | Comments Off on A Chestnut Is in the Rough

What the New Form 1099-K Hath Wrought: Changes on Business Tax Forms

There’s a new information reporting form coming this year: Form 1099-K. This form will report how much in payments are received by anyone via credit card and other third party payment systems (e.g. PayPal). This seems like a good way for the IRS to make sure that all credit card payments are being reported. (This was mandated by a law Congress passed a few years ago.)

However, what the IRS has done is redesign Form 1120, Form 1120S, Form 1065, Schedule C, and Schedule E. All of these forms now have a line asking for the amount received via merchant cards. (These are draft forms, so the forms could change. However, based on what I’ve been told these lines will remain.)

For business entities, there will be problems. Most businesses, especially large businesses, aren’t keeping track of income by payment type. For the larger entities, they may have to back into sales by credit card based on the Form 1099-K.

In any case, the amounts on the Form 1099-K’s will not match true sales. First, these amounts will include sales tax, shipping, and other non-sales charges. Second, the amounts on the Form 1099-K’s will be reported using cash basis. Any business that is accrual basis will have matching issues. Third, the reporting will likely be meaningless for any business that reports on a fiscal (non-December year-end) year.

Of course, any business could have matching problems. Consider online-inc.com, a company that only sells by credit card. On December 30th, they sell $1,000 by credit card. The company is accrual basis, so they report the income. Their 1099-K will not include the income.

But the same issue likely would occur for a cash-basis entity, too. Most smaller businesses enter credit card sales when they happen. The credit card company will note the sale on the 1099-K when the money actually goes to the customer.

The solution that I expect most businesses to use is to just use the Form 1099-K to populate this line. It’s simple, and guarantees that there will be no matching problems. Of course, that puts the cart before the horse but if you’re a business owner or a tax professional this solution is likely the one that lessens the risk of an audit.

Personally, I think this is just going to lead to problems. Before last month’s OCEA meeting, we discussed this issue and realized that most of our business clients are unprepared for what’s about to happen. Indeed, most business entities ignore 1099-MISC’s as the forms aren’t needed to prepare their returns. The same won’t be the case for the new 1099-K, so tax professionals will need to educate their clients…and soon. Overall, this is just another reason why tax professionals likely have lifetime employment.

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | Comments Off on What the New Form 1099-K Hath Wrought: Changes on Business Tax Forms

PTIN Follies, Year 2

The IRS announced today that tax professionals can renew their PTIN, an identification number used on tax returns. Seeing no reason to delay spending $63.00 I went headfirst into the process.

What a kludge. And yes, I’m being derisive. The IRS converted my user ID to all capital letters from all lowercase. I had to have the IRS email me my user ID (which is how I discovered this). Next, the password I set up last year didn’t work. I don’t know if they converted that, too, to all caps but I had a temporary password emailed to me.

Then I went to the application itself (after resetting the temporary password). I went through it, and it said there was a problem. The software didn’t take me to the problem — that would be too easy. Instead, it took me back to the beginning of the application. I figured out that I needed to enter the expiration date of my credential (Enrolled Agent), and had to edit the line where my EA number showed up. (There is nothing on this line to note there is missing information, btw.) It then allowed me to conclude and give the IRS $63.00. (The cost if you are a first-time PTIN registrant is $64.25.)

I’m underwhelmed.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 1 Comment

An Intuit of a Problem

I have more information on the coding issue: The problem lies with my software company, not the IRS. It seems that in a limited number of cases, my software (ProSeries, made by Intuit) returns a code “5” indicating that an electronic payment has been rejected when the actual transmission from the IRS is a code “4” indicating that the payment was accepted.

What is making me upset is that when I called Intuit this morning that they were aware of the problem and were working on it. They apparently do not consider this serious enough to proactively tell their user base about it. I asked for a supervisor to call me back; I have yet to get that call today.

Consider a hypothetical client, John Smith. Mr. Smith owes the IRS at the extension deadline $20,000. He chooses to have the funds electronically debited. His return is filed electronically and accepted, but the electronic funds payment is supposedly rejected. You tell Mr. Smith he needs to mail a check to the IRS for the $20,000 which he dutifully does. However, the payment was really accepted.

The client discovers two days later that the IRS has debited his account. Meanwhile, does he put a stop-payment on the check he sent the IRS (incurring fees from the IRS and his bank)? Or perhaps the check is cashed by the Treasury and now Mr. Smith is out an additional $20,000 for a few weeks. (The IRS will send a refund for the double-payment, but Mr. Smith loses the use of that money for a while.) Or perhaps the check bounces as Mr. Smith only had $30,000 in his bank account. Is Intuit going to cover Mr. Smith’s fees?

As best as I can determine, I had four clients impacted by this. I assume there are hundreds if not thousands impacted nationally. It will be very interesting to see how Intuit responds to this major issue.

Posted in Tax Preparation | Tagged , | Comments Off on An Intuit of a Problem

Possible Problem With IRS Coding of Rejected Tax Payments

If you are a tax professional and have recently had a client (or clients) whose IRS payment shows as rejected on Form 9325, it is possible that the payment actually went through.

When an individual files his tax return electronically, he can also pay electronically. Sometimes that payment is rejected for various reasons. I have seen multiple clients in the past few days whose payments were “rejected” actually have their payments accepted. I do not know if this is an issue with my software vendor, the IRS, or some combination thereof. I am going to be talking with both the IRS and my software vendor tomorrow.

I will post an update tomorrow (Thursday) with what I discover.

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on Possible Problem With IRS Coding of Rejected Tax Payments

Recharacterization Deadline for Roth IRAs is October 17th

Many individuals converted their traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2010. It seemed like a great idea but then the stock market went down. Now, some of these individuals owe tax on money they no longer have.

You can actually get a do-over: You can reverse (recharacterize) your Roth back to a traditional IRA. The Smart Money blog has more.

Hat Tip: Roth Tax Updates

Posted in IRS | Tagged , | 2 Comments