Take the Five Minutes: Reconcile Your Checking Account Each Month

If you’re in business, you’re required to keep books and records. Those books and records need to accurately reflect the income and expenses of your business. Seems simple, right? But as Tax Season is now here something I (and most tax professionals) see from small business owners is that they reconcile their checking accounts once a year rather than each month.

It’s not hard to balance the checkbook. Every month in QuickBooks I do it, and I’ve never seen an error…until this month. An invoice I paid for $50.00 got recorded on the bank statement as $60.00. What’s humorous about it is that my bank provides a picture of the cleared check. Not only was this an electronic payment (that generated a check), it clearly shows “Pay “FIFTY and 00/100.” When I called the bank they apologized and immediately corrected their error.

Mistakes happen, but there’s a more important reason to look at your bank statement. Suppose that you’re not the only person who writes checks from your account. Perhaps someone embezzled funds from you. Twice in the twenty years I’ve been a tax professional I’ve seen this. In the first instance, there were some checks not in the bank register. In the second case, the person doing the embezzling also balanced the checkbook. (Hint: Except for sole owners of businesses, people who can write checks should never balance the checkbook.) One month he was out with the flu and the malefaction was discovered.

There’s a cliche, “garbage in, garbage out.” With financial records, you need your inputs to be accurate. That means you need an accurate bank statement. Take the time to balance your checkbook each month.

Posted in Recordkeeping | Comments Off on Take the Five Minutes: Reconcile Your Checking Account Each Month

You Heard About that May 29th Filing Deadline, Right?

So let’s look at important tax deadlines this year. There’s January 31st (the deadline to mail and file many 1099s and to distribute and file W-2s), March 15th (the deadline to file S-Corporation and partnership tax returns, and Forms 3520-A), April 15th (the deadline to file personal, C-Corporation, trust/estate/fiduciary returns, and FBARs), and May 29th, of course.

What? There’s no tax deadline on Friday, May 29th. That’s technically true, but there is a filing deadline on May 29th : the Benchmark Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad (BE-10).

The BE-10 is due every five years, and five years ago it was quite a surprise to the tax professional community. Adding to the fun last time was that the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the government agency where the Survey is filed) was completely unprepared for the volume of reports. There were major issues with filing, and let’s just say that the experience was not good for everyone who had to deal with this.

So who must file?

All U.S. persons that owned, directly or indirectly, 10% or more of the voting stock of a foreign corporation, or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise (e.g. a partnership), at any time during the 2019 fiscal year, are required to file a BE-10 Report.

I’m giving an early heads-up on this, as I suspect few are aware of this required report. There are both possible civil and criminal penalties. If you’re a tax professional and have any clients who are owners of foreign entities, make sure they’re aware of this filing. The BEA webpage on the BE-10 isn’t fully ready (for example, the link to getting on their mailing list for updates is not working), but any tax professional who deals with this should bookmark this page and discuss this with your clients. And if you happen to be the owner of a foreign entity, make sure you’re aware of the May 29th deadline.

Posted in BEA, International | Tagged | Comments Off on You Heard About that May 29th Filing Deadline, Right?

It’s Time to Start Your 2020 Mileage Log

I’m going to start the new year with a couple reposts of essential information. Yes, you do need to keep a mileage log:

Last Thursday was the first business day of the new year for many. You may have resolved to keep good records this year (at least, we hope you have). Start with keeping an accurate, contemporaneous written mileage log (or use a smart phone app–with periodic sending of the information to yourself to prove that the log is contemporaneous).

Why, you ask? Because if you want to deduct all of your business mileage, you must do this! IRS regulations and Tax Court rulings require this. Written is defined as ink, so that means you need a paper log or must be able to prove your smart phone log is contemporaneous.

The first step is to go out to your car, and note the starting mileage for the new year. So go out to your car, and jot down that number (mine was 80,008). That should be the first entry in your mileage log. I use a small memo book for my mileage log; it conveniently fits in the center console of my car. It’s also a good idea to take a picture of the odometer;

Here’s the other things you should do:

On the cover of your log, write “2020 Mileage Log for [Your Name].”

Each time you drive for business, note the date, the starting and ending mileage, where you went, and the business purpose. Let’s say you drive to meet a new client, and meet him at his business. The entry might look like:

1/4 90315-90350 Office-Acme Products (1234 Main St, Las Vegas)-Office,
Discuss requirements for preparing tax return, year-end journal entries

It takes just a few seconds to do this after each trip, and with the standard mileage rate being $0.575/mile, the 35 miles in this hypothetical trip would be worth a deduction of $20. That deduction does add up.

Some gotchas and questions:
1. Why not use a smartphone app? Actually, you can but the current regulations require you to also keep a written mileage log. You can transfer your computer app nightly to paper, and that way you can have the best of both worlds. Unfortunately, current regulations do not guarantee that a phone app will be accepted by the IRS in an audit.

That said, if you backup (or transfer) your phone app on a regular basis, and can then print out those backups, that should work. The regular backups should have identical historical information; the information can then be printed and will function as a written mileage log. I do need to point out that the Tax Court has not specifically looked at mileage logs maintained on a phone. A written mileage log (pen and paper) will be accepted; a phone app with backups should be accepted.

2. I have a second car that I use just for my business. I don’t need a mileage log. Wrong. First, IRS regulations require documentation for your business miles; an auditor will not accept that 100% of the mileage is for business–you must prove it. Second, there will always be non-business miles. When you drive your car in for service, that’s not business miles; when you fill it up with gasoline, that’s not necessarily business miles. I’ve represented taxpayers in examinations without a written mileage log; trust me, it goes far, far easier when you have one.

3. Why do I need to record the starting miles for the year?
There are two reasons. First, the IRS requires you to note the total miles driven for the year. The easiest way is to note the mileage at the beginning of the year. Second, if you want to deduct your mileage using actual expenses (rather than the standard mileage deduction), the calculation involves taking a ratio of business miles to actual miles.

4. Can I use actual expenses? Yes. You would need to record all of your expenses for your car: gas, oil, maintenance, repairs, insurance, registration, lease fees (or interest and depreciation), etc., and the deduction is figured by taking the sum of your expenses and multiplying by the percentage use of your car for business (business mileage to total mileage driven). Note that once you start using actual expenses for your car, you generally must continue with actual expenses for the life of the car. Be careful if you (or your family) have multiple vehicles. You will need to separate out your expenses by vehicle.

So start that mileage log today. And yes, your trip to the office supply store to buy a small memo pad is business miles that can be deducted.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on It’s Time to Start Your 2020 Mileage Log

IRS Announces 2019 Tax Filings to Begin on January 27th

The IRS today announced that the 2019 tax filing season for individuals will begin on Monday, January 27th. Tax Returns and payments are due by Wednesday, April 15th (an extension to file is available until October 15th, but payment of tax is still due by April 15th). The full IRS notice is available here.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on IRS Announces 2019 Tax Filings to Begin on January 27th

2020 Standard Mileage Rates Released

Yesterday, the IRS announced the 2020 standard mileage rates. The rates are:

  • 57.5 cents per mile for business use (down 0.5 cents per mile from 2019);
  • 17 cents per mile for medical or moving use (down 3 cents per mile from 2019); and
  • 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations (set by statute).

As a reminder, keep your mileage log! (Indeed, I’ll have a post on keeping your 2020 mileage log next week.)

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on 2020 Standard Mileage Rates Released

The 2019 Tax Offender of the Year

This year really went by fast, but unfortunately there’s no shortage of candidates for the Tax Offender of the Year award. As a reminder, to be considered for the Tax Offender of the Year award, the individual (or organization) must do more than cheat on his or her taxes. It has to be special; it really needs to be a Bozo-like action or actions.

The United States Congress received another nomination. The correspondent noted that Congress has abdicated looking at spending, and that’s been done by both Democrats and Republicans. I agree, but that’s not enough to win this year.

California received two separate nominations. The legislature received one for A.B. 5. That’s the new law that prohibits most independent contractors in the ‘gig’ economy. The law will likely lead to fewer independent contractors (that’s the intent of it), but won’t increase employment and will lead to a lowering of tax collections. I agree completely with the individual who sent in that nomination. However, any impacts will be in 2020 (not 2019), so I think this should be held in abeyance until next year.

The California Office of Tax Appeals ruled that an individual selling into California but with no presence in the state owes California tax. While I expect this ruling to eventually be narrowed by federal courts (potentially being completely overruled), it’s a stupid ruling and will lead to many avoiding dealing with Californians. It’s another penny-wise, pound-foolish outcome from California.

Craig Orrock of Salt Lake City received a nomination. Mr. Orrock is a former IRS employee and a former attorney. We’ll stress the word former because his conduct ensured he can’t be either ever again. From the Department of Justice press release:

Evidence at trial showed that Orrock filed tax returns for the years 1993 through 2015, but did not pay the income taxes reported as due on those returns. Orrock attempted to prevent the IRS from collecting the reported income taxes by using entities, bank accounts, and trusts in other names to hide his income and assets from IRS collection officers, filing frivolous bankruptcy petitions, and filing an offer-in-compromise falsely representing to the IRS that he had virtually no assets.  For example, Orrock used an entity known as Arville Properties LLC to conceal from the IRS his ownership of real property that he sold in 2007 for $1.5 million. In all, Orrock evaded the payment of over $500,000 in federal income taxes.

Mr. Orrock will be paying nearly $924,000 of restitution and will spend 32 months at ClubFed.


Something I’ve stated since I began this blog is that if you want to get in trouble with the IRS, one of the easiest ways to do so is to withhold employment taxes and not remit them. As far as I know, the IRS investigates all such cases.

Lawrence R. Gazdick, Jr. founded an equipment rental business in Dulles, Virginia (near Washington, DC). Mr. Gazdick’s business appeared to be successful, in that he had 70 – 100 employees. He used various names for his businesses (which isn’t an issue), with multiple bank accounts (52 in 9 different banks). He offered health insurance for his employees, with a plan from Kaiser Permanente which cost over $200,000. That’s a business that’s doing well.

Of course, since I’m writing about this, there were some issues. None of his businesses bothered filing employment tax returns, but he was diligent in withholding employment taxes from his employees’ pay. It was only $3.874 million of trust fund taxes (along with an additional $1.477 million of employer FICA taxes). Additionally, Mr. Gazdick didn’t bother to pay Kaiser for the health insurance; the check was “in the mail.”

Mr. Gazdick also didn’t file corporation or LLC taxes. It’s not clear if he needed to file Forms 1120, 1120S, or 1065 for his businesses as he held his businesses to be corporations and LLCs, but something needed to be filed. At least he was consistent: Mr. Gazdick hadn’t filed personal tax returns since at least 2000. (Some tax professional is about to get a lot of business.)

Mr. Gazdick’s business came to the attention of the IRS. This was certain to happen. Consider that employees filed their income tax returns, noting withholding of income tax (and FICA taxes). The IRS won’t find the matching payroll tax returns (Forms 941) from the employer. The IRS will easily get evidence of the problem (either by looking at the W-2s filed with the Social Security Administration and/or getting copies of pay stubs from employees).

Mr. Gazdick had an answer: I’ll just change the name of the business. He used multiple names, likely in trying to keep the IRS at bay. It didn’t work, but not for the obvious reason. (It’s certain that sooner or later the IRS would have looked into the missing payroll tax deposits.)

Mr. Gazdick was previously convicted of a felony. Convicted felons are not allowed to possess firearms. Mr. Gazdick had a firearm for his business. That came to the attention of a task force formed under “Project Safe Neighborhoods.” The goal of Project Safe Neighborhoods (which began in 2001) is reducing violent crime. The investigation likely began because of the gun. A helpful hint to anyone who is going to commit a felony with a high likelihood of investigation: Do not commit another felony which also has a high likelihood of investigation. But I digress….

It appears that the Project Safe Neighborhoods investigation led to the tax investigation. The tax case was pretty much a slam dunk given the facts (that I noted above). Mr. Gazdick has pled guilty, and has promised to make restitution of the $5.35 million in employment tax loss and the $200,000 which wasn’t paid to Kaiser. While sentencing was supposed to have occurred in October, it appears to have been delayed.


And that’s a wrap on 2019. I wish you and yours a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year.

Posted in IRS, Payroll Taxes | Tagged | Comments Off on The 2019 Tax Offender of the Year

An Update on Arizona v. California

There’s been some news on Arizona’s attempt to stop California from requiring indirect passive owners of LLCs who happen to own other LLCs that invest in California from having to pay California’s $800 minimum franchise tax.

When we last looked at this, the Supreme Court asked the Solicitor General (of the U.S.) to file a brief commenting on the case. That brief has been filed.  The Solicitor General believes that the motion to file a bill of complaint should be denied because, “…this is not an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction.”  The Solicitor General believes that Arizona entities can file their own lawsuits and that the case is not one appropriate for the Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Arizona didn’t like the Solicitor General’s brief and filed a reply brief of its own.  Arizona believes that the Solicitor General got it wrong, and that leave should be granted.

It’s probable that the Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant leave within the next two months.

Posted in Arizona, California, Supreme Court | Comments Off on An Update on Arizona v. California

Congress Gets in the Christmas Spirit: Tax Extenders Pass

“It’s looking a lot like Christmas,” is how one Christmas tune begins. Here in Las Vegas, that means it’s cold (for Las Vegas), and the few deciduous trees in town are now leafless. But Congress got in the Christmas spirit, passing tax extenders. There are a lot of provisions, so let’s get to the ones most likely to impact you.

1. Three ObamaCare taxes are gone: the medical device excise tax, the 40% excise tax on high-cost employer provided health coverage, and the annual fee on health insurance providers. ObamaCare continues to go into the garbage can of history on a piecemeal basis.

2. There are numerous changes to retirement programs. The biggest change is that the age for required minimum distributions has been increased to 72 from 70 1/2. This change is effective for distributions required to be made after December 31, 2019 for employees and IRA owners who attain age 70 1/2 after December 31, 2019.

3. It used to be that if you had cancellation of debt income from your primary residence, you could exclude that from taxation. That vanished–but it’s back! This provision is retroactive to 2018, so if this impacted you an amended return may be in the future. This provision sunsets at the end of 2020 (unless Congress extends it again).

4. Mortgage insurance premiums used to be deductible, but that went away. That’s also back, retroactive to 2018; if this impacts you an amended return may be in your future. This provision sunsets at the end of 2020.

5. The medical expense deduction for 2019 and 2020 returns will be based on 7.5% of AGI, not 10% of AGI.

6. The Tuition and Fees deduction is back for 2018 (retroactive) through 2020.

7. The tax credit for construction of energy efficient homes is back for 2018 (retroactive) through 2020.

Those are just the highlights; there are numerous other provisions. This legislation still must be signed into law by President Trump (he has indicated he will sign it). I would expect tax software companies to have made the appropriate adjustments in their software by the end of January.

An obvious question is whether you should file an amended return if you’re impacted by one of these changes for 2018. The answer will be, “It depends.” The reality is that if the issue is major (you’re a home builder and can take the tax credit for energy efficient homes, or you had large cancellation of debt income from your personal residence) the answer will undoubtedly be yes. However, let’s say you paid $300 of mortgage insurance (and you did itemize) in 2018. Let’s further assume you’re in the 22% tax bracket. That means your potential tax savings are $66. If a tax professional prepares an amended return, he or she will have to charge you. Now, for a change like this the cost will generally be minimal (it should take very little time), but tax professionals must charge for their time. Let’s say the charge is $60. Then you have to add in the cost of postage (all amended returns must be mailed to the IRS) which means certified mail, so that will add in another $6. So you would be spending $66 to save $66 in my hypothetical — a wash. Thus, each individual will need to look at their unique situation.

It would be far better for Congress to drastically simplify the Tax Code or not have extenders; simply pass legislation at the beginning of each year rather than the end of it. The good news for 2020 is we do have certainty on these extenders for next year.

Posted in IRS, Legislation | Tagged | Comments Off on Congress Gets in the Christmas Spirit: Tax Extenders Pass

Nominations for the 2019 Tax Offender of the Year Are Due

In a little less than a month it will be time to reveal this year’s winner of the prestigious “Tax Offender of the Year” award. Remember, To be considered for the Tax Offender of the Year award, the individual (or organization) must do more than cheat on his or her taxes. It has to be special; it really needs to be a Bozo-like action or actions. Here are the past lucky recipients:

2018: California’s Train to Nowhere
2017: State and Local Pension Crisis
2016: Judge Diane Kroupa
2015: Kenneth Harycki
2014: Mauricio Warner
2013: U.S. Department of Justice
2012: Steven Martinez
2011: United States Congress
2010: Tony and Micaela Dutson
2009: Mark Anderson
2008: Robert Beale
2007: Gene Haas
2005: Sharon Lee Caulder

Posted in Taxable Talk | Tagged | Comments Off on Nominations for the 2019 Tax Offender of the Year Are Due

FOIA Lawsuit Looks at IRS Procedures on Representative’s Personally Identifiable Information

One of the tax blogs that I faithfully read is Procedurally Taxing. Today, they noted a lawsuit against the IRS regarding the IRS’s procedures when a third-party calls them for taxpayer information. The author of the post is a tax attorney, Nick Xanthopoulos; he’s joined in the lawsuit by Professor Keith Fogg of Harvard University.

Suppose I have an IRS Power of Attorney (POA) or Tax Information Authorization (TIA) for a client, and I request information from the IRS (this could be a transcript, whether a payment is received, putting a client in “Currently Not Collectible Status”, having a misapplied payment applied correctly, etc.), the IRS agent will ask for my personally identifiable information at the start of the phone call (my social security number, date of birth, and occasionally some other information). This is in addition to what the IRS Internal Revenue Manual (IRM) (the IRM is the book of procedures IRS employees are supposed to follow) says is required to verify that I am authorized to represent a taxpayer (the taxpayer’s name, social security number, the tax year and forms we are authorized for, and our CAF number (an identifier assigned by the IRS to each tax professional who files a POA or TIA with the IRS)). Why does the IRS need my social security number? As today’s post notes:

In January 2018, the IRS changed the procedure with no advance notice, and obviously, no opportunity for comment by the effected parties.  Since then, IRS employees begin nearly every phone call by forcing practitioners to say our own SSN, date of birth, and other personal information.

The IRS said they needed this information to make sure taxpayers were not victims of identity theft. Well, that’s well and good, but what about tax professionals being victims of identity theft? This information makes its way into the clients files; the post notes that the author has obtained recordings of calls through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. In two of these calls, one of the authors’ social security numbers was on the recorded call.

The tax professional community hasn’t thought that this ‘enhanced’ procedure is a great idea. “Practitioners should never be forced to choose between representing someone as effectively as possible and protecting ourselves from identity theft or other misuse of our own personal information,” is how the author puts it. So the author of the post filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the IRS’s precautions on this information. The IRS sent the authors to a redacted version of IRM 21.1.3.3, claiming that releasing the whole thing would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions, and such disclosure could lead to circumvention of the law. The authors appealed, but the appeal was denied.

The authors filed a lawsuit in US District Court for the District of Minnesota. Their goal is not monetary; rather, it is, “…to find out answers to these questions so that the practitioner community can begin to have a voice in how its information is used by the IRS and protected from abuse.”

Do I have confidence in the IRS protecting my personally identifiable information? I think the IRS will try, but given their past results I don’t trust them at all. I am hopeful that the authors will prevail in their lawsuit and some transparency will throw open some IRS procedures.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on FOIA Lawsuit Looks at IRS Procedures on Representative’s Personally Identifiable Information