If You Were Paid for Protesting in North Dakota…

There’s been a political firestorm over oil pipeline construction in the United States. That’s been the case with the Dakota Access Pipeline construction in North Dakota. I’ll ignore the politics of whether or not the pipeline should be built. (If you’re interested, you can find plenty of literature on that subject.) I’ll stick to taxes, thank you.

But one thing that is true regarding the Dakota Access pipeline protests: Paid protesters were brought in. Ryan Rauschenberger read about those paid protesters and had a thought: Shouldn’t those paid protesters be paying state income tax to North Dakota? After all, the protests were in North Dakota, the work was conducted in North Dakota, and there’s definite nexus to the state. Mr. Rauschenberger is more able than others to make sure that those taxes flow to the Peace Garden State; he’s the Tax Commissioner of the state.

The Washington Times interviewed Mr. Rauschenberger:

“If an organization is directly paying someone to come and do activities on their behalf, even protesting — if they’re receiving income and they’re here in North Dakota performing activities for an organization, they owe income tax from Day One,” Mr. Rauschenberger said. “And that entity should be issuing 1099s. Just like a contractor…

“I think a lot of people think that, ‘Oh, if something goes through GoFundMe, it’s just always considered a gift.’ But it can also be used as a way to funnel money just like an employer paying a contractor,” Mr. Rauschenberger said. “It can be a way to funnel money as well, and very well could be taxable. I’m not saying it is. I’m saying it could be. And it’s really on a case-by-case basis.”

It’s not likely that the North Dakota Office of State Tax Commissioner will go after individual protesters (unless they receive a W-2 or 1099 and don’t file); the office has a staff of only 128. However, it’s far more likely the state will go after organizations that paid for protesters; the state will get more bang for the buck there. So if you were paying protesters in North Dakota, make sure you file those 1099s and send a copy to Bismarck.

Posted in North Dakota | Comments Off on If You Were Paid for Protesting in North Dakota…

Breaking Bad Hits an IRS Attorney

In the television show “Breaking Bad,” a high school chemistry teacher turns to selling methamphetamine to help his family; that’s a decidedly illegal activity. An IRS attorney is accused of pursuing the same activity.

Jack Vitayanon, an IRS attorney in the Office of Professional Responsibility, was arrested today and charged with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. According to the criminal complaint, Mr. Vitayanon has allegedly been trafficking drugs since 2014.

From the ICE press release,

“Selling methamphetamine is a serious crime which is made more egregious when it is committed by a U.S. government attorney assigned to the Office of Professional Responsibility of the IRS,” said Angel Melendez, special agent in charge HSI New York. “People that sell this highly addictive and destructive drug must be brought to justice before more lives are lost to this epidemic.”

The IRS Office of Professional Responsibility is to, “…[S]upport effective tax administration by ensuring all tax practitioners, tax preparers, and other third parties in the tax system adhere to professional standards and follow the law.” A CNBC news story states Mr. Vitayanon worked in investigating complaints against tax professionals for OPR.

Mr. Vitayanon faces several years at ClubFed if found guilty of the charge.

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on Breaking Bad Hits an IRS Attorney

2017 Mailbag #2: The Case of the Deliberately Wrong 1099

Our second mailbag post deals with an issue I’ve reported on before: an incorrect information return. Once again, there’s a twist.

In 2015 I did some consulting for them and was paid $10,000; I received a 2015 Form 1099-MISC that correctly noted the income. I just received a 1099-MISC from them for 2016; however, I didn’t do any work for them in 2016. I called them and there response to my asking them to correct the error was “no.” What should I do?

The advice I gave before still applies:

But what if he refuses [to correct the 1099? Here, practicality must be used. Let’s say the total of your gross receipts is $32,000, and the total of your 1099-MISCs (and 1099-Ks) is $29,000. I’d likely just enter the 1099-MISC as received, and lower the “other” gross receipts by the extra $3000. (IRS instructions on information returns state to use the actual number. The problem is that the automated underreporting (AUR) unit will almost certainly send you a notice if you use the wrong number.)

Unfortunately, my correspondent’s total of her correct 1099s exactly equals her gross receipts so this strategy won’t work. I think there are two things she should do. First, send a letter (via certified mail) to the issuer of the incorrect 1099 explaining the situation and requesting that they issue a corrected 1099. Make sure you keep a copy of the return receipt (or tracking).

Second, consider including the 1099 on your tax return and then subtracting out the income (as a “return and allowance”). The IRS suggests (in this situation) that you subtract it out within gross receipts; the problem with that is that you’re almost certain to get an AUR notice. This method is less likely to generate an IRS notice, and your income is still being accurately reported.

What if you’re unlucky enough to get an IRS notice or be audited on this issue? Most of the time the burden of proof is on you, not the IRS; however, with information returns the burden of proof is on the IRS. The only evidence of my correspondent earning this “income” is the Form 1099-MISC. She has a separate bank account for her business; her bank deposits in 2016 exactly equal her gross receipts. Everything backs her story.

Congress changed the law on when 1099s for nonemployee compensation (independent contractors); those 1099s must now be filed by Tuesday, January 31st. One unforeseen consequence for tax professionals (and for recipients of 1099s) is that there will be more issues with incorrect 1099s this year. Hopefully the IRS’s performance on dealing with corrected 1099s will improve. If not, we’ll be dealing with a score of IRS notices on this issue next year.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on 2017 Mailbag #2: The Case of the Deliberately Wrong 1099

2017 Mailbag #1: The 1099 Doesn’t Show Up, So I Don’t Have to Report It, Right?

It’s time for this year’s mailbag, and we’ll start with a common question: What happens if you’re expecting a 1099 and it doesn’t show up? There’s a twist as you will soon see:

I did contract work for a company and they should issue me a 1099. However, the company closed its doors; the company closed its doors last March (the owner retired) and the owner passed away a month later. If (when) I don’t receive the 1099, do I still have to report the income?

Yes, you need to report the income. All income is taxable unless Congress exempts it. Yes, the company you did work for is supposed to issue you a Form 1099-MISC. But whether or not you receive a 1099 doesn’t change whether income is taxable or not. You were paid for services, and that’s income. Simply total what you received and include it in your gross receipts for your business.

Sure, the executor of the owner’s estate is supposed to take care of all responsibilities. That includes the final tax returns and any information returns that must be filed. Interestingly, one of my clients just received a 1099 for 2014. The situation appears similar to my correspondent’s. It turns out the owner passed away and the estate was handled through probate. It took two years for the final tax return and the associated information returns to be prepared. It’s a non-issue for my client; he included the income on his 2014 tax return.

Remember, simply report all of your income regardless of whether or not you receive a 1099 (or other paperwork). It’s easier to sleep at night when your tax return is accurate.

Posted in IRS | Tagged | Comments Off on 2017 Mailbag #1: The 1099 Doesn’t Show Up, So I Don’t Have to Report It, Right?

Train to Nowhere is Significantly Overbudget

The Los Angeles Times has a report today that California’s bullet train may cost 50% more than initially thought…and that’s in the “easy” section to build (in California’s flat Central Valley). It’s now estimated to cost somewhere between $9.5 to $10 billion (rather than the initially budgeted $6.4 billion).

I’ve written about this train before. The train makes no sense; if the train is completed (a dubious assumption), how many people will use it when you can fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco for less than $100 in one hour?

Meanwhile, Governor Jerry Brown is telling Californians that the state is likely running a budget deficit. An obvious solution—but one that will not happen in the Bronze Golden State—is to end the train to nowhere.

I remain quite happy to no longer be a taxpayer in California.

Posted in California | Tagged | Comments Off on Train to Nowhere is Significantly Overbudget

Swart Wins Appeal; Not Liable for California Minimum Tax

Good news for non-California businesses that are passive investors in an investment that invests in a California entity. The Franchise Tax Board (California’s income tax agency) has been ruling that business entities that have no active business in California but make an investment in another entity that invests in California must pay California’s mandatory $800 annual franchise tax. Today, a California Court of Appeal upheld the lower court judgment that Swart Enterprises, Inc., one such entity, is not doing business in California.

The facts of the case were not disputed. Swart is a small family-owned Iowa corporation, with a farm in Kansas; occasionally they make sales to Nebraska. Swart has no physical presence in California, no property of any kind (or employees) in California. It does not sell to California. Yet the FTB said it owed the California minimum franchise tax. Why? As the Court noted,

In 2007, Swart invested $50,000 in Cypress Equipment Fund XII, LLC (Cypress LLC or the Fund) and became a member of the LLC. Swart’s investment amounted to a 0.2 percent ownership interest. This is Swart’s sole connection with California.

Cypress was simply an investment fund. But the FTB said, “A foreign business entity (partnership, LLC, or corporation) is considered doing business in California if it is a member of an LLC that is doing business in California,” and owed the minimum $800 franchise tax. Swart paid the tax but filed a claim for refund. The FTB denied the claim. Swart filed a lawsuit which they won; the FTB appealed.

The Court of Appeals noted,

Although this matter calls for our independent judgment, our views are substantially consistent with the trial court’s ruling, which we find to be logical and well-reasoned. We are not persuaded Swart may be deemed to be doing business in California because it owns a 0.2 percent interest in a manager-managed LLC doing business in California. Swart’s only connection to California was a mere 0.2 percent ownership interest it passively held during the tax year the franchise tax was imposed. This interest closely resembled that of a limited, rather than general, partnership as evinced by the fact Swart had no interest in the specific property of Cypress LLC, it was not personally liable for the obligations of Cypress LLC, it had no right to act on behalf of or to bind Cypress LLC and, most importantly, it had no ability to participate in the management and control of Cypress LLC. Because the business activities of a partnership cannot be attributed to limited partners, Swart cannot be deemed to be “doing business” in California solely by virtue of its ownership interest in Cypress LLC. [citations omitted]

There’s more. The FTB tried to hold that because Cypress LLC is being taxed as a partnership, all partners are general partners, and Swart must pay the $800 minimum tax. The Court disagreed.

Like the limited partners in Amman & Schmid, Swart had no interest in the specific property of Cypress LLC (Corp. Code, former § 17300), it was not personally liable for the obligations of Cypress LLC (id., former § 17101, subd. (a)), it had no right to act on behalf of or bind Cypress LLC (id., former § 17157, subd. (b)(1), (2)), and Swart was prohibited from participating in the management and control of Cypress LLC…

We conclude Swart was not doing business in California based solely on its minority ownership interest in Cypress LLC. The Attorney General’s conclusion that a taxation election could transmute Swart into a general partner for purposes of the franchise tax, and that the business activities of Cypress can therefore be imputed to Swart, is not supported by citation to appropriate legal authority and, in our view, defies a commonsense understanding of what it means to be “doing business.”

There are many other similar cases working through the appeals process and the California court system. (There is a case of a corporation that invested in another entity that invested in another entity that made a California investment, and California is attempting to impose the $800 minimum tax on the corporation. That’s a passive investor in another passive investor that has made an investment in California.) It appears that California courts are taking a dim view of the idea that a passive investor with no ties to California can be made into an entity liable for California tax simply making an investment in California. Incidentally, the Court awarded legal costs to Swart.

The bad news is that I fully expect the Franchise Tax Board to appeal this decision to the California Supreme Court. Still, we appear to be reaching the point where California will likely cease this practice.

Posted in California | Tagged | Comments Off on Swart Wins Appeal; Not Liable for California Minimum Tax

Please Don’t Do This!

Joe Kristan tweeted the following last weekend:

As I was going through my emails this morning, one of my clients (she shall remain nameless) sent me an email with her CP01A notice attached. The CP01A notice is the IRS notice giving a victim (or potential victim) of identity theft his or her Identity Theft PIN. I suspect Joe made that post on Twitter because one of his clients did the same thing as my client.

Meanwhile, another client of mine faxed me his CP01A notice. That’s a far, far safer method of sending the Identity Theft PIN to your tax professional. You can also hand it to your tax professional or upload it using their web portal (or file transfer system—the name isn’t as relevant as the method). Mail is considered a secure means of sending things, too.

Do not email anything containing personally identifiable information such as social security numbers or dates of birth. Of course, if you want to be a victim of identity theft, go right ahead and do so. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Posted in Tax Preparation | Tagged | Comments Off on Please Don’t Do This!

It’s 1099 Time

It’s time for businesses to send out their annual information returns. These are the Form 1099s that are sent to to vendors when required. Let’s look first at who does not have to receive 1099s:

  • Corporations (except attorneys)
  • Entities you purchased tangible goods from
  • Entities you purchased less than $600 from (except royalties; the limit there is $10)
  • Where you would normally have to send a 1099 but you made payment by a credit or debit card

Otherwise, you need to send a Form 1099-MISC to the vendor. The best way to check whether or not you need to send a 1099 to a vendor is to know this before you pay a vendor’s invoice. I tell my clients that they should have each vendor complete a Form W-9 before they pay the vendor. You can then enter the vendor’s taxpayer identification number into your accounting software (along with whether or not the vendor is exempt from 1099 reporting) on an ongoing basis.

Remember that besides the 1099 sent to the vendor, a copy goes to the IRS. If you file by paper, you likely do not have to file with your state tax agency (that’s definitely the case in California). However, if you file 1099s electronically with the IRS you most likely will also need to file them electronically with your state tax agency (again, that’s definitely the case in California). It’s a case where paper filing might be easier than electronic filing.

If you wish to file paper 1099s, you must order the forms from the IRS. The forms cannot be downloaded off the Internet. Make sure you also order Form 1096 from the IRS. This is a cover page used when submitting information returns (such as 1099s) to the IRS.

Note also that sole proprietors fall under the same rules for sending out 1099s. Let’s say you’re a professional gambler, and you have a poker coach that you paid $650 to last year. You must send him or her a Form 1099-MISC. Poker players who “swap” shares or have backers also fall under the 1099 filing requirement.

This year there are new deadlines for submitting 1099-MISCs for “Nonemployee Compensation” (e.g. independent contractors) to the IRS: Those 1099s must be filed by Tuesday, January 31st.

Here are the deadlines for 2016 information returns:

  • Tuesday, January 31st: Deadline for mailing most 1099s to recipients (postmark deadline);
  • Tuesday, January 31st: Deadline for submitting 1099-MISCs for Nonemployee Compensation to IRS;
  • Tuesday, February 28th: Deadline for filing other paper 1099s with the IRS (postmark deadline);
  • Wednesday, March 15th: Deadline for mailing and filing Form 1042-S; and
  • Friday, March 31st: Deadline for filing other 1099s electronically with the IRS.

Remember, if you are going to mail 1099s to the IRS send them certified mail, return receipt requested so that you have proof of the filing.

Posted in IRS | Comments Off on It’s 1099 Time

Start Your 2017 Mileage Log Now

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

Tuesday is 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 69,678). 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.

Here’s the other things you should do:

On the cover of your log, write “2017 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:

1/5 70315-70350 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 $0.52/mile, the 35 miles in this hypothetical trip would be worth a deduction of $18. 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.

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 Taxable Talk | Comments Off on Start Your 2017 Mileage Log Now

The 2016 Tax Offender of the Year

Every year I hope that I won’t find any deserving individuals of the Tax Offender of the Year Award. To win this award, you need to do more than cheat on your taxes; it has to be a Bozo-like action or actions. As usual, we had plenty of nominees.

Coming in third this year is the Internal Revenue Service. What did the IRS do to deserve this award? Well, we have the IRS Scandal; it’s still unresolved. If we were to believe the IRS nothing untoward happened! I’m sure that’s why Commissioner Koskinen faced an impeachment resolution. And remember the data breaches? It wasn’t 104,000 people who were victimized back in 2015 (the “Get Transcript Hack) nor was it 334,000 taxpayers. There were over 700,000 people impacted (and over 500,000 unsuccessful attempts)! As Joe Kristan says, “The IRS: Protecting your identity since 1913.” Or not.

Coming in second place this year is the Miccosukee tribe of Indians in Florida. They’ve been fighting in both US District Court and US Tax Court that income to members of the tribe from a casino isn’t taxable. To date, they’ve lost every single case. Most recently, in August US District Judge Ceclilia Altonaga ruled that a tribal member must pay nearly $279,000 in taxes, penalties, and interest stemming from not filing a 2001 tax return. The Tax Court cases have been inching along; most recently, the Tax Court ruled that a trial will be held and that the tribe cannot subpoena witnesses from the Department of the Interior to interpret statutes (the judges will do that). In March, the tribe lost an appeal that they were immune from US taxes. (The lawsuit alleged that the US had waived sovereign immunity for the tribe. The lawsuit was dismissed in US District Court; the tribe appealed and lost that appeal.)


A husband and wife from Minnesota were indicted in April on tax evasion charges. The charges, detailed in the indictment, are very typical tax charges. The couple were alleged to have fraudulently claimed personal expenses as business expenses, including rent, utilities, garbage removal, household cleaning, remodeling windows, interior design fees, a dishwasher, furniture to stage a house for sale, Pilates classes, jewelry, wine club fees, and grooming expenses. (There are more, but that’s a good range of the expenses they claimed on their returns.)

They were also alleged to have not reported income from a sale of land in South Dakota, and to have not reported canceled debt income. Adding to their troubles, they were alleged to have lied to an IRS Office Examiner during an audit of their 2004 and 2005 tax returns in 2006. It’s a very bad idea to lie to an IRS employee; that’s a felony. They then allegedly lied again during an audit of their 2009 and 2010 returns (in 2012). One would think they had learned but….

Of course, they allegedly lied to their tax professional regarding all of the returns, grossly understating their income. They ended up owing an additional $500,000 in taxes, penalties, and interest.

Unfortunately, this kind of tax crime (taking personal expenses as business expenses) is fairly common. Most individuals believe that they just won’t get caught. As the Tax Court has noted,

Taxpayers may deduct ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on a trade or business. The term “ordinary and necessary business expenses” means only those expenses that are ordinary and necessary and are directly attributable to the trade or business. The term does not include personal, living, or family expenses. Simply because an expense would not have been incurred but for the taxpayer’s engaging in a trade or business is insufficient to allow a deduction. The nature of the expense must not be personal or otherwise nondeductible.

There are many expenses that are helpful, even essential, to one’s business, but which are not deductible in our tax system. Expenses of driving to and from work, for example, are not deductible. Expenses for clothing worn in a taxpayer’s trade or business, and the costs of laundering the clothing, are not deductible if the clothing is adaptable for nonbusiness wear.

The judge who wrote that decision is Diane Kroupa. Ms. Kroupa was a US Tax Court judge from June 2003 until her resignation in June 2014. She’s also one of the two defendants in this case. Yes, a former Tax Court judge committed tax evasion. And that is why she is the 2016 Tax Offender of the Year.

When Judge Kroupa and her husband were indicted, my reaction was the same as Law Professor Dennis Ventry, Jr. of the UC Davis Law School:

Smart people do dumb things all the time but this is a head-scratcher. If you’re a high-level government employee, you side on saying ‘no’ to a deduction; you take the conservative approach.

I didn’t report on this case when the indictment was issued in early April (it was during the annual down-time for my blog). I had noticed the story, of course, but basically couldn’t believe it. However, both Robert Fackler (Judge Kroupa’s husband) and Judge Kroupa pleaded guilty.

In the plea examination, Judge Kroupa admitted her crime:

Q. And neither you nor Mr. Fackler told the tax preparer the amounts reflected in the information, spreadsheets, or tax organizers that you gave him included personal expenses that were disguised as business expenses?
A. No.
Q. That fact is true?
A. That fact is true, we did not provide that information.
Q. And by doing that, you thereby significantly and fraudulently increased Grassroots Consulting’s business expenses, which then reduced the amount of taxes that you jointly owed to the IRS?
A. Correct.
Q. And on page 4 and page 5 of this plea agreement there is a list of descriptions of specific expenses that were included supposedly as business expenses which were, in fact, personal expenses, correct?
A. Correct.
Q. You’ve looked at this list and either you know that these are ones that were included or else you have seen evidence to that effect?
A. Correct.
Q. So in total from 2004 through 2010 did you and Mr. Fackler fraudulently deduct at least 500,000 of personal expenses as purported Schedule C business expenses?
A. Yes.

Judge Kroupa certainly knew the law; her resume is quite impressive:

Judge. b. South Dakota. B.S.F.S. Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 1978; J.D. University of South Dakota Law School, 1981. Prior to appointment to the Court, practiced tax law at Faegre & Benson, LLP in Minneapolis, MN. Minnesota Tax Court Judge from 1995 to 2001 and Chief Judge from 1998 to 2001. Attorney-advisor, Legislation and Regulations Division, Office of Chief Counsel and served as attorney-advisor to Judge Joel Gerber, United States Tax Court, 1984-1985. Admitted to practice law in South Dakota (1981), District of Columbia (1985) and Minnesota (1986). Member, American Bar Association (Tax Section), Minnesota State Bar Association (Tax Section), National Association of Women Judges (1995 to present), American Judicature Society (1995 to present). Distinguished Service Award Recipient (2001) Minnesota State Bar Association (Tax Section). Volunteer of the Year Award, Junior League of Minneapolis (1993) and Community Volunteer of the Year, Minnesota State Bar Association (1998). Appointed by President George W. Bush as Judge, United States Tax Court, on June 13, 2003, for a term ending June 12, 2018.

Unfortunately, we must add, “Pleaded guilty to tax charges (2016)” to that list.

Judge Kroupa’s actions—a former Tax Court judge committing tax evasion—make her a worthy recipient of the 2016 Tax Offender of the Year Award.


That’s a wrap on 2016! While I am hopeful 2017 will not provide me a lengthy list of candidates for Tax Offender of the Year, I suspect that I’ll have plenty of choices.

I wish you and yours a happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year!

Posted in Tax Evasion, Taxable Talk | Tagged | 3 Comments