The Deduction From Hell (Corporate Taxes)

Not many small businesses do their own tax returns. If they do, they’re likely to “enjoy” Form 8903, “Domestic Production Activities Deduction.” By the way, this form is not yet on the IRS’ website. The draft version of the form has only 19 lines, and looks deceptively easy.

It’s not.

It’s going to make tax preparers get gray hair. Luckily, I already have gray hair so that’s not an issue….

Let’s take a look at how this deduction “works” (all sarcasm intended). You own Widgets, Inc., and you manufacture widgets, and sell them. Your plant is in the United States.

So yo enter your receipts on line 1, your cost of goods sold on line 2, your direct and indirect deductions, to get your “qualified production activities income (QPAI).” This is then compared to your income limitation, which is 3% of the lesser of the QPAI or the taxable income for the taxable year (without regard to this deduction). Additionally, the deduction is limited to 50% of the wages paid by the taxpayer to employees during the tax year. Thus, self-employed manufacturers do not get this deduction.

That’s the simple case.

Now, let’s assume that this same company has two plants, one in Irvine and one overseas in China. Both plants produce the same products, and there’s nothing to distinguish the widgets made in China from those made in Irvine.

This new deduction holds only for the products produced in Irvine, so you will have to perform an allocation (presumably based on number of units produced in each plant). This is the not-so-simple case.

Now, let’s look at a much more realistic case, one that I’ll have to face. A company has two plants, one here in California and one overseas. They make a variety of products, and also perform services (repairs, consulting, field service, etc.). The products made here and the products made overseas are distinguishable, but are freely interchangeable. The company has never tracked product sales by location of manufacture (they do track it for quality control purposes).

In order to determine the correct deduction, I’ll have to:
—allocate between the manufacturing and service businesses;
—allocate between the products manufactured domestically and internationally; and, finally,
—allocate the domestic salaries by services and manufacturing.

Now, let’s make this more confusing. Some services do qualify, courtesy of effective lobbyists, such as architectural and engineering services. Newspaper production qualifies. Unfortunately, tax preparation services do not qualify. Software development qualifies but software support doesn’t. Restaurants don’t qualify but food preparation done for wholesale does qualify.

I’m not looking forward to my first venture in preparing a return with this deduction. IRS guidance is forthcoming, but it hasn’t been released (yet). The IRS does have a brief overview of the deduction. Notice 2005-14, which gives the IRC on this deduction (§199) is here. Professor Maule previously commented on this deduction.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | 4 Comments

One Down, Two (at least) To Go

Yesterday John Campbell (R-Irvine) won the race to replace Christopher Cox as Congressman for the 48th Congressional District. Chris Cox is now the head of the SEC.

As mentioned previously, voters in the same area of Orange County now face an election to replace Campbell as State Senator for the 35th District. That special election will be scheduled by the California Secretary of State for either February or March, with a runoff eight weeks later (April or May), if no candidate receives greater than 50% of the vote. State Assemblyman Tom Harman (R-Newport Beach) is the leading candidate to replace Campbell in the heavily Republican district.

News Story: Orange County Register

Posted in California | Comments Off on One Down, Two (at least) To Go

If You Fail 3 Times…The Fourth Time Won’t be the Charm

The joy of frivolity. Having fun at the expense of others (playing practical jokes, for example) can give yourself a good laugh. However, it is not a good idea to do it in Tax Court.

As noted in Roth Tax Updates, Glen Silver filed a petition in Tax Court in regards to his 2001 and 2002 returns (which he did not file). In Tax Court, he “…did not raise any bona fide dispute….” This was his third try in Tax Court, and he had been fined $3,000 for his frivolous arguments on his last attempt. He had also been warned, “[The Court] urge[s] him to reconsider any positions he takes that may result in an increase in penalties for making similar arguments in that case when it’s called next year about this time.”

He didn’t reconsider his positions. No surprise, he was fined $25,000.

And the Court noted that he is trying a fourth time in Tax Court, in a petition likely to be heard in 2006. The Court warned Mr. Silver, “…if he pursues the same arguments in that case, he may expect an additional penalty under section 6673.”

Case: Silver v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2005-281

Posted in Tax Court | Comments Off on If You Fail 3 Times…The Fourth Time Won’t be the Charm

Where Paper Filing is Simpler than Electronic Filing

Come late January or early February, you may have to file your 1099s with the IRS. If you are in California, you likely believe that filing with the IRS satisfies your California filing requirement.

If you paper file, that’s true. However, if you electronically file your 1099s, you must also file them with the Franchise Tax Board. And if you forget to do so, you could be subject to fines.

If you have any questions regarding your 1099 filing requirements, please ask us. If we file your 1099s on your behalf, we’ll make sure that Sacramento gets their copy.

Posted in Tax Preparation | Tagged | Comments Off on Where Paper Filing is Simpler than Electronic Filing

Another Election on Tuesday

If you, like me, live in Orange County’s 48th Congressional District, don’t forget to vote this Tuesday for Chris Cox’s replacement. If you don’t know where your precinct will vote (and many polling places have been moved), you can find your precinct here.

If State Senator John Campbell wins (he is favored), there will be another special election (probably in March) for his replacement. And possibly a runoff in May. Followed by the June primary. And a possible special election for the replacement of the (likely) State Assemblyman who replaces Campbell. And a runoff….

Posted in California | Comments Off on Another Election on Tuesday

Money Machine Undone

Wade Cook, author of books such as Wall Street Money Machine was indicted on eight counts of tax fraud, obstruction of justice and conspiracy. Cook, and his wife (who was also charged), created a phony tax exempt entity but allegedly concealed $8.9 million in income and used some of it on pianos, horses and other investments.

In 2002, Wade Cook Financial was hit with an FTC civil contempt order for not complying with a 2000 court order. Cook still conducts his seminars.

Cook faces three to fifteen years in prison for each count if convicted plus fines of up to $1 million per count. Cook, in a Seattle Times story, denies the charges, stating, “If I’m guilty of anything, it’s loving my job and loving my church…What’s wrong with that?”

News Story: Seattle Times

Posted in Tax Fraud | Comments Off on Money Machine Undone

Document, Document, Document….

We’ve said it before, and we’ll continue to say it: Save your paperwork, receipts, etc. If you’re ever audited by the IRS, you need documentation. If you have it, things (usually) will go well; if not, expect a battle.

Yesterday the Tax Court decided a basis case regarding an inherited portion of a home. The taxpayers became owners of 1/3 of a house after the 1/3 owner left the home. The owners then sold the home. The only question for the court to decide was the basis of the home for tax purposes.

Basis questions can be quite complex. In general, your basis in your home is the price you paid for the home, plus costs involved in purchasing the home, plus costs for selling the home and related legal expenses (including defending the title), and plus any capital improvements you made in the home. Capital improvements are major repairs such as a new roof or new carpeting; replacing one shingle is a minor repair. And, as always, you must document the improvements.

Unfortunately, the petitioners had no paperwork documenting any of the improvements (which were done by the prior 1/3 owner). Because one of the petitioners is a CPA, the Tax Court stated, “…should have known that such improvements should have been documented if, as petitioners contend, the expenditures constituted capital expenditures….” The petitioners, as a consolation prize, were allowed to deduct $5,000 in legal expenses that the court inferred were expended.

Case: Bettencourt v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary 2005-175

Posted in Tax Court | Comments Off on Document, Document, Document….

Bribery & Tax Evasion for a Congressman

Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) pled guilty today to charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud and tax evasion. The charges stem from Cunningham “selling” his house for an inflated price; the new owner then immediately re-sold the house and had a $700,000 loss. This while the San Diego housing marketing was skyrocketing.

Cunningham, who represents a San Diego area district, faces several hundred thousand dollars in fines and up to ten years in prison.

Posted in Tax Evasion | Comments Off on Bribery & Tax Evasion for a Congressman

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Is a “Contract for Deed” deductible when used to satisfy alimony obligations? The Tax Court today said no.

Contract for Deed’s are financing arrangements that allow buyers to purchase property from sellers by borrowing the money from the sellers. The Tax Code only allows deductions for alimony for cash or cash equivalents (e.g. checks). The court ruled that a Contract for Deed is a debt instrument and cannot be deducted as alimony.

In the same case, the petitioner also lost his arguments for deducting Bed & Breakfast expenses and writing expenses because of lack of books and documentation. We cannot emphasize enough that you need to keep your backup paperwork. Have good books (or hire a good bookkeeper).

Case: Lofstrom v. Commissioner, 125 T.C. No. 13

Posted in Tax Court | Comments Off on No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

Just One Digit Off

What happens if you receive your W-2 and your company made a mistake on your social security number and it’s off by one digit? Being an unscrupulous individual, you sense opportunity! “I don’t have to report my wages from my employer! The IRS won’t be able to match up the wages!”

Of course, when the IRS receives the wage information (forwarded by the Social Security Administration), they’ll notice the mistake and send a letter to the employer. The employer will then check their records, and fix the error (or let the IRS know that their records match the data sent).

So what happens to the employee who doesn’t file? Problems, of course.

First, you did receive the W-2. Second, whether or not you receive a W-2, you are required to file your tax return each year. In fact, there’s even a form for you to use if you don’t get a W-2, Form 4852. And third, if you don’t file, sooner or later the IRS will catch up with you. There is no statute of limitations if you don’t file.

Today the Tax Court decided a case where the petitioner claimed he filed, but the IRS couldn’t find a record of his filing under his social security number, the incorrect SSN used by his employer, or his spouse’s SSN. The numbers didn’t make sense, either. And there was no record of him filing a state tax return. The Tax Court didn’t believe him. And he didn’t spend the $4.42 on certified mail, return receipt requested to prove he mailed his returns.

The court found him liable for his taxes, penalties for failure to file, and failure to make timely estimated payments. In the future, he might just let his employer know about the error and file his returns.

Case: Zakhem v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary 2005-171

Posted in Tax Court | Comments Off on Just One Digit Off