Decoding the Code

The Imitation Game is the critically acclaimed story of Alan Turing, a British mathematician who is widely credited as being the father of computer science and artificial intelligence. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Turing, whose work in cracking Nazi Germany's "ENIGMA" code helped lift the Allies to victory in World War II.

Seventy years later, retiring Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has picked up the code-breaking bug. But Coburn has decided to take on something even more twisted and fiendish than Nazi ciphers. That's right — he's just issued a 312-page "Tax Decoder" taking on our tax system. (Read it at your peril — if decoding takes 312 pages, just imagine what encrypting looks like!)

Coburn's goal is to give us "an educational reference guide designed to equip taxpayers and lawmakers with the details needed to thoughtfully reconsider many aspects of the existing tax code." We're not sure why Coburn thought he needed 312 pages to make his case — anyone who's ever seen their first paycheck and wondered "what's FICA?" knows the system is a mess. Still, here are some highlights:

• Our tax system has metastasized like a glioblastoma. "In 2012, the Internal Revenue Code contained over 4 million words, enough to fill 9,000 pages. By way of comparison, a pamphlet with the original 1913 income tax required only 27 pages for the full text of the statute."
• Our friends at the IRS really do want to help, but they're just under financed, understaffed, and underfed. “From FY 2004 to FY 2012, the number of calls the IRS received from taxpayers on its Accounts Management phone lines increased from 71 million to 108 million, yet the number of calls answered by telephone assistors declined from 36 million to 31 million."
• The law is full of inappropriate and wasteful giveaways benefiting taxpayers who would do just fine without them. "There is no shortage of tax subsidies for the rich and famous, such as credits to renovate vacation homes and purchase luxury cars and deductions for yachts. McDonald’s even received tax breaks to sell Chicken McNuggets overseas."
• Too many "not-for-profit" groups serve their own interests instead of the public interest. "Lady Gaga’s 501(c)(3) Born This Way Foundation is advertised as an organization that connects youth with antibullying, mental health, and other community resources, but its main activity appears to be throwing free pre-concert tailgate parties for fans."

Coburn's solution probably won't surprise you. Ideally, throw it all out and start over. At the very least, make it simpler, flatter, and fairer. "The tax code should be simple enough that everyone — including members of Congress — is capable of filling out their own tax return." (We'll let you decide if that means an easier tax system or smarter members of Congress!)

Still, there is some good news that we can help you put to work — and you'll find it on the very first page. "Due to the code’s complexity, your taxes are not a simple calculation of earnings and obligations. Instead, taxes are determined by how well you can take advantage of the hundreds of tax credits, deductions, exclusions, and carve-outs tucked into the code." In other words, all that complexity creates opportunity — and the more complicated your taxes are, the more likely we can help. So, if you're looking for a New Year's resolution to kick off 2015, call us and resolve not to waste any more money on taxes you don't have to pay!

Our Twelve Days of Christmas

Every year, PNC Bank publishes their "Christmas Wealth Index" to track the cost of the Twelve Days of Christmas. For 2014, it's $116,273.06, up 1.4% from 2013. (And you thought your holiday spending was out of control!)

The index may not be completely accurate — for example, the ten lords-a-leaping are valued using the cost of male ballet dancers, rather than actual lords, and the eight maids-a-milking don't come with eight actual cows. But still, it got us to thinking . . . what sort of taxes are we looking at on the whole affair?

• Twelve drummers drumming and eleven pipers piping make quite a racket every holiday season. Hiring all that help will stir up a cacophony of payroll taxes!
• Ten lords may look perfectly happy while they're leaping. But surely they must pay a king's ransom in income taxes — after all, they are lords!
• Nine ladies dancing make a lovely sight at Christmas time — especially if they're Rockettes. They also pay a cabaret tax for the privilege of displaying their talent.
• Eight maids-a-milking help make sure we have plenty of eggnog to drink. Good thing so many states offer dairy tax credits to spur the cows on to higher holiday production!
• Seven swans-a-swimming? Six geese-a-laying? If we accept the rule of thumb that two birds per acre of pond is a manageable number, then we're looking at some serious property taxes to host our holiday flock!
• Who doesn't want five gold rings under the tree? But selling those rings can be an expensive proposition. Remember, jewelry held for personal use is still subject to 20% tax on long-term capital gains, plus an extra 3.8% "net investment income tax"!
• Four calling birds use a lot of cell phone minutes over twelve days. (They're calling birds, so unlimited texting won't help.) Naturally, that means a 5.82% federal excise tax, plus state and local sales tax too.
• Three French hens add a sophisticated "continental" touch to any one's holiday festivities. But don't forget the import duties you pay to bring foreign livestock into the country!
• Two turtle doves are known among bird watchers for forming strong "pair bonds," which makes them a symbol of devoted love. (That's why they're in the song!) Too bad that means they pay that pesky marriage penalty that hits high-income couples who file jointly! (Okay, we know this this one's a stretch. But we've got twelve days of taxes to file here, so what can we do?)
• Nothing says "Christmas" like a partridge in a pear tree. And our tax code is full of juicy incentives for growing pear trees. You can deduct operating expenses associated with your crop; you can depreciate equipment and land improvements you use to manage your groves; and you can even take generous charitable deductions for rights you give up for conservation easements. Why, the tax savings alone should be more than enough to pay for the partridge!

Yes, even Twelve Days of Christmas just means twelve more opportunities for the tax man!

We wish you and your family the best this holiday season. We'll be back in 2015 to make sure you pay as little tax as possible, not just during the holidays, but all year long!

#1 On the Naughty List?

"Christmas comes this time each year," as the Beach Boys astutely observed in "Little Saint Nick." That means Santa Claus will be making his annual "list," checking it twice, and letting us know who's naughty or nice. (That's right, Santa "audits" himself by checking it twice.) This year, one San Diego resident will be somewhere near #1 on the "Naughty" list.

Lloyd Irving Taylor graduated from San Diego State University and Loyola Law School. As a CPA, he's authorized to prepare tax returns and represent clients before the IRS. And as an attorney, he's authorized to prepare tax returns, represent clients before the IRS, and represent them in court. He's well aware of what the law says he and his clients can do to pay less tax, and what will land him a big lump of coal in his stocking.

But Taylor apparently hates paying taxes with a Grinch-like grinchiness. No Burgermeister Meisterburger could tell him he can't have his toys!

So, he started off by stealing the identities of at least nine deceased children, some of whom had died as far back as the 1950s. He used those identities to finagle fraudulent passports from U.S. embassies in Europe. Then he used those passports to open financial accounts to hide his income and assets, including $1.6 million in gold coins.

Maybe stealing those identities made Taylor feel guilty. Why else would he have gone and made up over a dozen phony churches, too? He opened 31 more bank and investment accounts in the names of those churches. Then he argued that the churches' tax-exempt status meant he didn't owe tax on their income.

Things might not have been quite so bad if he had at least reported the income from his schemes. But Taylor, who's now 71, has filed tax returns just seven times since he finished school. That works out to once every six years. Those un-filed returns add up to $5 million in unreported income and $1.6 million in unpaid taxes.

Let's be honest here. It doesn't say much for the elves at the IRS that Taylor flew under their radar for so long! But he eventually did wind up in the cross hairs of the San Diego Regional Fraud Task Force, an alphabet soup of agents from the IRS, Secret Service, San Diego Police Department, and State Department Bureau of Diplomatic Security. (Bet you didn't know those last guys even existed!)

Taylor has been in custody since April, 2013 — the judge at his bond hearing noted his international travel on false passports, the millions in cash he controlled through his network of bank accounts, and his history of lying to banks as reason to rule him a flight risk. Last month, the jury at his trial took just 30 minutes to convict him on 19 felony counts. (They probably voted him guilty in the first two minutes, then had a cup of coffee or two just to make it look like they actually "deliberated.") The judge sentenced Taylor to 57 months with his fellow naughty-listers in an institution not noted for the cheerfulness of its holiday decorations. Taylor also owes $2.2 million in restitution.

What makes Taylor's case so outrageous, of course, is that he knows you don't need to steal a dead child's identity or establish a bogus church to pay less tax. You just need a plan to take advantage of all the IRS-approved deductions, credits, and strategies the law allows. You don't even have to wait for Santa to leave them in your stocking — just call us, and see what holiday savings we can deliver!

Battery-Powered Tax Savings

We know something that's on your holiday shopping list. And we don't even have to read your mind to know it. You're buying batteries — and you're buying lots of 'em. If you have kids, you're buying batteries for their electronic games and toys. If you have grandchildren, you're buying batteries for their stuff. (You may not have a clue what you're actually getting them, but you still know it needs batteries.) No kid wants to work hard all year to make the "nice list" and wake up on Christmas morning without the batteries they need to power the presents they earned!

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, America's second-richest man, is buying batteries too. But he's doing it a little different from you and me. He isn't just buying batteries. He's buying the company that makes the batteries. And he's saving a billion dollars in taxes along the way! Just try doing that the next time you stop at Radio Shack for a pack of AAs (if they're still open by the time you read this, that is).

Last month, Buffett's company, Berkshire Hathaway, announced that would buy Duracell from Procter & Gamble for $4.7 billion. Ordinarily, this would be the sort of wheeling and dealing the Fortune 500 engage in every day. Buffett likes adding well-known brand names to his collection, which already includes GEICO, Fruit of the Loom, and Dairy Queen. At the same time, P&G is shedding "nonessential" businesses to focus on the company's core cleaning and beauty products. (They don't even own Jif anymore — talk about some choosy mothers!)

Here's what makes the deal interesting. Buffett "just happens" to have $4.7 billion worth of P&G stock sitting in his sleigh, stock he acquired for $336 million. Now, he could certainly sell that stock and use the cash to pay for Duracell. Unfortunately, that would mean paying 35% corporate tax on his gain, which would leave him a hair under $3.2 billion to use for his batteries. But, by swapping that P&G stock directly for the battery company, Buffett avoids paying tax on his entire gain. Zero! The strategy is called a "cash-rich split-off," and it's perfectly legal. It won't land Buffett in hot water with the IRS. It won't even put him on Santa's "naughty list"!

You might think that sort of strategy only works for billionaires like Buffett. But you can take advantage of a similar strategy, at least when you make charitable gifts. Let's say you paid $1,000 for some shares of stock that are now worth $10,000. You want to donate that stock to your church. You could sell the stock, donate the after-tax proceeds, and take a deduction for your after-tax gift. Or, you could just give the stock and let the church sell it. That avoids tax on the gain, just as Buffett did with his cash-rich split-off, and even gives you a deduction for the full pre-tax value of your stock.

Buffett hasn't been shy about criticizing the tax system. In 2011, he made headlines when he pointed out that his secretary pays a higher marginal rate then he does. President Obama even dubbed his proposal to impose a minimum tax of 30% on incomes over $1 million the "Buffett Rule." But while Buffett may think the law is unfair, still isn't going to pay any more than it requires. He told Fortune magazine "I will not pay a dime more of individual taxes than I owe, and I won’t pay a dime more of corporate taxes than we owe.” And the Duracell deal isn't even his first cash-rich split-off for 2014!

Warren Buffett wants the same thing for Christmas that you do — tax savings! And he knows he can't just wait for Santa to leave them under his tree. He knows he needs a plan. Fortunately, you don't have to be a billionaire to get the plan you need. There's even time to put it on your Christmas list! Don't write a letter to Santa, just pick up the phone and call us — while there's still time to save in 2014!

Taxation for the Other Guy's Representation

ur United States of America was forged in the flame of tax protest. As early as 1750, our Founding Fathers objected that taxation without representation is tyranny. In 1776, the Declaration of Independence condemned King George III for assenting to Parliament's laws that "impose Taxes on us without our Consent." So is it any surprise the anti-tax movement that gained steam after the 2008 recession took its name from the patriots who dumped a shipload of tea into Boston Harbor rather than pay the Townshend Act duties?

In the two centuries since we traded "God Save the Queen" for "Hail to the Chief," the U.K. has become one of our closest allies. But we Yanks still chafe at paying British taxes. Most recently, the Mayor of London says our diplomats owe £7 million in "congestion charges" on their vehicles in Central London. But our Embassy considers that a tax, argues that our diplomats are immune, and refuses to pay.

It's ironic, then, that that same Mayor is protesting an American tax on the sale of his London home.

Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson was educated at Eton and Oxford. (Where else does a Brit with a name like "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel" go to school?) He began his career as a reporter, columnist, and editor for The Times, the Daily Telegraph, and the Spectator. He then turned his sights towards politics, serving as Member of Parliament for the constituency of Henley and rising to Shadow Minister for Higher Education. He's served as Mayor since 2008, and there's even talk of him succeeding Prime Minister David Cameron as head of the Conservative Party.

So why on earth would Johnson attract attention from tax authorities on our side of the pond? Well, he was born in New York City, when his English father was studying on a Harkness Fellowship, and lived there until age 5. This means he holds dual American and United Kingdom citizenship. And that, in turn, makes him subject to U.S. tax on all his worldwide income, wherever earned.

Back in 1999, Johnson and his wife paid £470,000 for a house on Furlong Road in the London suburb of Islington. (That's about $750,000 at today's exchange rate.) Since then, London real estate prices have shot through the roof, and in 2009, they sold the house for a £730,000 profit. Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs doesn't tax home sale gains, but the IRS taxes anything above a $500,000 allowance. The bottom line on Johnson's gain is a six-figure tax bill in either currency.

Naturally, Johnson is not amused. An NPR correspondent recently asked him point-blank if he would pay, and he literally sputtered: "No, is the answer. I think, it's absolutely outrageous. Why should I? I think, you know, I'm not a — I, you know, I haven't lived in the United States for, you know, well, since I was 5 years old."

That may not be the only tax issue lurking in Johnson's past. He earns £144,000 per year as Mayor, plus another £250,000 as columnist for the Telegraph. Theoretically, he should be paying U.S. tax on everything above a "foreign earned income exclusion" of about £62,000. No word on whether he's been paying all these years, or whether our friends at the IRS want to confront that sticky wicket.

So, 239 years after "the shot heard 'round the world" launched the American Experiment, tax collectors on both sides of the Atlantic think it's jolly good sport to reach into each other's pockets. The good news is, no matter where you're paying, if you want to pay less, you just need a plan. If you don't already have that plan, call us now, while there's still time to save in 2014!

400 People Giving Thanks

Back in 1982, Forbes magazine compiled their first "Forbes 400" list of the richest Americans. It took $75 million to gain entry to that first list, which featured an entire country club's worth of Rockefellers, Mellons, and DuPonts. Shipping magnate Daniel K. Ludwig reigned above the rest, with a net worth of $2 billion. (You all remember that guy, right?) Since then, the Forbes 400 has become the magazine's most eagerly awaited feature, with Silicon Valley tech billionaires and hedge fund superstars replacing the blue-blood heirs of yore.

They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Ten years later, in 1992, our friends at the IRS got into the "400" game, compiling statistics on the 400 highest incomes. And while the IRS isn't telling us everything we want to know (like their names!), the report offers a fascinating peek into the wallets of 400 people with great reasons to give thanks this season.

Last week, the numbers geeks in the IRS Statistics of Income division released their Top 400 summary for 2010. (It took awhile to sift through the 143 million returns the IRS got that year.) It took $99.1 million in adjusted gross income to make the list. (That means that, among others, billionaire Warren Buffet didn't make the list, as he revealed his adjusted gross income for that year was a "mere" $63 million.) The average income for the top 400 was $265.1 million, and the group as a whole reported 1.31% of the entire country's adjusted gross income.

The big surprise isn't how much our top 400 make, it's how they make it. Not salaries and wages — those made up just 6.41% of the total. Not interest and dividends — those made up just 8.54% and 16.41%, respectively. No, the real action came from capital gains, which averaged $165.9 million for each of our top earners. In fact, those 400 taxpayers all by themselves accounted for over 14% of capital gains reported by the entire country.

And how much tax did our top 400 pay? Remember, rates on capital gains were capped at just 15% in 2010, and there was no 3.8% net investment income tax as there is today. So, the average "top 400" tax bill was $47.8 million, and the group as a whole paid 2.01% of the entire country's tax bill. Sure, that sounds like a lot. But it equals a rate of just 18.04% of the average "top 400" income — and barely half the top 35% marginal rate. In fact, 37 of those 400 paid less than 10% of their income in tax, while just 54 paid over 30%.

4,024 taxpayers have joined the IRS Top 400 over the last 19 years. 2,909 of them appeared just once, which reinforces the fact that most of those lucky winners make it by selling something like a business they spend a lifetime nurturing. 504 have appeared twice; 175 have appeared three times, and 126 have appeared four times. Just 95 taxpayers have appeared on the list 10 or more times, and you can imagine the holidays are pretty lavish at their houses.

This holiday season, we want to give thanks to you, our loyal readers. This includes those of you who are clients, and those of you who aren't (yet). We wish you and your families the best, and we understand that the best reasons to give thanks don't show up on your tax returns.

But hey, as long as we're talking — if you haven't called us yet for a plan to pay less tax, what are you waiting for? There's still time left for planning in 2014 — and we're confident that if you do, you'll have more to give thanks for, in 2014 and in all the years to come.

Jilting the IRS

Harold Hamm was born in Lexington, Oklahoma, the 13th child of Oklahoma sharecroppers. He graduated from high school then went straight to work in an oilfield. But he didn't let his modest background slow him down. He hit his first gusher at age 25. Today, he's CEO of Continental Resources, and his net worth approached $18 billion before the recent fall in oil prices.

In 1988, Harold married his second wife. Sue Ann Hamm was no "bimbo trophy wife" — she's a lawyer who met Harold while she was negotiating land deals for his company. (And just because you'll ask: nope, no prenup.) But sadly, the couple's love was not to last, and in 2012, Sue Ann filed for divorce. The case attracted unusual attention because the amounts were so large. Oklahoma courts typically split the value of any assets that result from the efforts or skills of either spouse. So, how much would Sue Ann get? Would it be more than the record-setting $4.5 billion that Elenea Rybolovlev got from her ex-husband, Russian potash producer Dmitry?

Last week, the judge issued his ruling and surprised most experts by ordering Harold to pay Sue Ann a total of just $995.5 million, or six percent of his peak net worth. While most people would consider that a nice gusher of cash, Sue Ann has already announced plans to appeal. (As for Harold, if you ask him why divorce is so expensive, he'll probably tell you "because it's worth it.")

So, will our friends at the IRS be excited by the outcome? Probably not, even if Sue Ann wins a richer share of her ex-husband's fortune. Internal Revenue Code section 1041 provides that transfers of property "incident to divorce" are tax-free. That means Harold can transfer as little or as much as the court orders to Sue Ann, with no income tax consequences — it's neither taxable to her nor deductible to him. And there are no gift tax consequences, either.

The IRS may reap a nice windfall, however, if Sue Ann sells any of her shares from the divorce. Harold launched the company back in 1967, and still controls 68% of the company's stock. His "basis" in that stock — the amount the IRS uses as the "purchase" price for figuring gain or loss on a sale — is probably next to nothing. And that basis carries over to Sue Ann. That means that when she sells, she'll be subject to a capital gains tax of up to 20%, plus the new net investment income tax of 3.8%. Sell a hundred million of stock, and walk away with a lousy $76.2 million!

The real payoff will have to wait until Sue Ann caps that great well in the sky. At that point, any taxable estate over a $5.43 million is assessed at 40%. On the bright side, her basis in that stock will be "stepped up" to its fair market value as of the date of her death, which means her heirs can sell without paying income tax on all that appreciation during her lifetime.

As for alimony and child support, which won't factor into the Hamms' case, courts use alimony to shift income from the higher-earning spouse to the lower-earning spouse. So alimony is deductible by the payer and taxable to the payee. Child support is nontaxable either way, meaning there's no tax consequence to paying it or receiving it.

You've probably heard the joke about the husband who asks his long-suffering wife what she wants for Christmas. She says "a divorce," and he says "I wasn't planning on spending that much." Divorce is hard enough under most circumstances — it's good to know the tax man won't be jumping your claim, too. So call us when you're ready to cut out the IRS — we'll give you the plan you need to protect your stake!

Deduct the Alamo!

In 1836, Mexican General Santa Anna and 1,500 troops laid siege against 182 Texans garrisoned at the Alamo, a Spanish mission designed to resist attack from native tribes. Thirteen days later, the Mexicans stormed the walls and killed every last man inside, including Commander William Travis and frontiersmen Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie. Santa Anna's cruelty inspired Texans to join their army to seek revenge, crying "Remember the Alamo!" on their way to crushing the Mexicans at the Battle of San Jacinto.

Remembering the Alamo has become a central part of Texas history. So, which Texas musician just offered a tax-planning lesson by donating his collection of Alamo artifacts to the Texas Land Office? Was it rock 'n' roll pioneer Roy Orbison, hailing from lonely Vernon near the Oklahoma border? Perhaps it was country legend Willie Nelson, born an hour south of Fort Worth? Wait, wait . . . was it Tejano accordionist Leonardo "Flaco" Jiménez from San Antonio? No, no, and no. The answer, of course, is English singer and drummer Phil Collins, hailing from the London suburb of Chiswick!

Collins fell in love with the Alamo legend at age 5, watching actor Fess Parker play the "King of the Wild Frontier" Davey Crockett. According to Texas Monthly, the rocker's collection includes hundreds of documents, "plus artifacts like uniforms and Brown Bess muskets that belonged to Mexican soldiers, a sword belt believed to have been worn by Travis when he died atop the northern wall, and a shot pouch that Crockett is thought to have given a Mexican soldier just before he was executed." For years, they sat in his basement in Switzerland. But last month, Collins donated over 200 of his pieces to go on display in a new Alamo Visitors' Center.

Collins grudgingly admits to spending "seven figures" building his collection. Today it's said to be worth as much as $15 million. That sort of appreciation would seem to invite attack from the troops at the IRS. (And collectibles like the Alamo artifacts are even subject to a special 28% rate, 8% higher than the regular 20% for regular long-term gains). But there's an easy way for donors like Collins to avoid that tax, and get an even bigger charitable deduction for their gifts.

Let's say you spend $5 million building a collection that grows to be worth $15 million. Then you decide you want it to go to a museum. If you sell it to the museum, you'll owe $2.8 million in capital gains tax, plus $380,000 in "net investment income tax" on your $10 million gain. That's probably not as bad as being overrun by 1,500 soldiers — but it still leaves you with just $6,820,000 of after-tax gain.

Now let's say that instead of selling your collection to the museum, you donate it. Now you won't pay any tax at all. (Why should you? You never really "realize" your gain.) And, because you're making a charitable gift, you get to take a charitable deduction for the full $15 million value of your donation!

That same strategy works for any sort of appreciated property. Let's say you paid $1 million for a piece of property, which is now worth $3 million. Now you want your Alma mater to have that $3 million, even though you know they can't use the property itself. You could sell the property, donate the after-tax proceeds, and take a deduction for your after-tax gift. Or, you could just donate the property and let the school sell it. That would avoid the tax on the gain and give you a deduction for the full pre-tax value!

Tax planning couldn't save the Texans at the Alamo. But it can shield you from the IRS artillery. So if your year-end plans include charitable gifts, call us. We can help you with ideas to make the most of those gifts, even if you're not deducting the Alamo.

Pagans 1, Mind Control Defenders 0

We're all familiar with the idea of "tax exempt" organizations. The theory here is that some groups serve such valuable roles in society that they should be exempt from income, property, or other taxes. Here in the United States, Internal Revenue Code Section 501 lists 28 categories of exempt organizations, including churches, colleges, charities, social clubs, chambers of commerce, fraternal organizations, cemeteries, and even "mutual ditch or irrigation companies."

Nobody gets a tax-exemption "for free," and applying for it can be daunting. IRS Form 1023, "Application for Recognition of Exemption," runs 28 grueling pages. There's a shorter "EZ" version — but the checklist to see if you can even use it runs six full pages! And of course state and local governments have their own hoops to jump through. With that in mind, here are two stories that illustrate how that process can work — and not work.

The Cybeline Revival is a pagan sect founded in 1999 and dedicated to the principle that "the divine feminine, the mother goddess Cybele, is present in everything, thereby creating a connection in all living things, as well as giving rise to an obligation to do charitable work and a responsibility to improve the conditions of all people, particularly women." In 2002, the group bought an old inn located in the town of Catskill, New York, about two hours up the Hudson from Manhattan. They used it as a home for transsexual women and as a headquarters for their faith.

In 2009, the group applied for a property tax exemption for the inn. The town assessor denied the request and a trial court agreed, ruling that the church used the property mainly to house members of the congregation. Last year, however, an appeals court overturned that decision, holding that the church did use the property "primarily for its religious and charitable purposes."

Not everyone who applies for tax-exempt status succeeds, however. In August, the IRS shot down an application from a group dedicated to protecting the human rights of defenseless victims of involuntary microwave and mind control attacks "perpetrated by intelligence agencies, individuals, defense contractors, mental health agencies, and clandestine crime watch organizations who also work with organized crime syndicates."

The group applied for tax-exempt status to help educate the public about involuntary mind control, develop weapons to cancel mind control attacks through electronic jamming, and implement counterattacks for particular victims on a case-by-case basis. They also set out to solicit donations to influence proposed legislation written by the group's founder (who must be a hoot at cocktail parties).

So . . . did our friends at the IRS buy it? Of course not. (C'mon, guys, give 'em a little credit!) In fact, they dedicated 14 pages to not buying it, holding that: 1) the group failed to establish that their activities would be "educational," 2) its funds would be used to reimburse the founder for expenses incurred prior to formation, and 3) its primary purpose was actually to lobby for anti-mind control legislation. (They diplomatically refrained from saying "you're nuts" or "really???")

We don't need to use mind control techniques to know that you want to pay less tax. While we can't protect you from clandestine crime watch organizations or crime syndicates, we can give you a plan to pay the least amount of tax, without lining your hat with tinfoil. So call us for your plan, before someone out there makes you want to pay more!

Illegal Deduction in the Backfield

The 1985 Chicago Bears were one of the greatest teams in NFL history — in fact, ESPN ranked them the greatest ever.  Quarterback Jim McMahon, Hall-of-Fame running back Walter Payton, defensive tackle William "Refrigerator" Perry, and the rest of the team captured America's heart as they sent nine players to the Pro Bowl and shuffled their way to victory in Super Bowl XX.

Hard to believe that was just 29 short years ago. Today's "Monsters of the Midway" are 3-5 after going into hibernation against the New England Patriots this week. They've lost to the Bills, the Packers, the Panthers, and the Dolphins. They're even losing to the Cook County Revenue Department! And that contest illustrates the sort of hair-splitting that seems to define so much of tax law.

In 2003, the Chicago Park District renovated the team's home at Soldier Field. The new venue includes 8,000 "club seats" on the Lake Michigan side of the field that come with all sorts of extra goodies like access to the heated "Club Lounge," parking, and game day programs. There are also 133 luxury suites that rent for up to $300,000 per year and include private seating, private bathrooms, food and drinks, and even individual temperature controls. (If you've ever shivered through a December game at "the Eyesore on the Lake Shore," you'll realize that heat may be the most valuable perk of all!)

Cook County, where the stadium sits, levies an amusement tax equal to "three percent of the admission fee or other charges paid for the privilege to enter, to witness or to view such amusement." (We're not sure how "amusing" it is to watch Da Bears fall to the lowly Carolina Panthers, but that's a topic for a different day.) However, that tax specifically excludes "any separately stated charges for non amusement services or sales of tangible personal property."

And that's where it starts getting tricky. How much of the premium ticket price should be subject to that tax and how much should be exempt?

The team broke out a separate "club privilege fee" from the price of the club seats and argued that it shouldn't be taxable because it's separate from the right to enter the stadium and watch the game. As for the luxury suites however, they did not break out a separate fee for the extras, but assigned those seats a flat $104 value and paid the tax on that amount. In 2007, the county threw a penalty flag, holding that it's impossible to separate the extra perks from the price of a seat, and sacked the team for $4.1 million in extra taxes.

Naturally, the Bears challenged the ruling on the field. They took it to an administrative law judge, who sided with the county.

If this had been an on-field call, the Bears would have been allowed just one challenge — and they would have been charged with a timeout too, for losing it! But that's not how it works with taxes. So the team appealed to the replay judges at the Cook County Circuit Court, and won. But now the county had possession. They advanced the ball to the First District Appellate Court, which re-affirmed the tax. (Don't rule out a Hail Mary to the Illinois Supreme Court. And you thought football games have gotten too long!)

Coach Mike Ditka would never have led his '85 Bears to the field without a game plan to minimize his opponents' strengths and take advantage of their weaknesses. It works the same way with your taxes. So call us when you're ready for your own plan. But do it fast! December 31 is closer than you think, and the clock is about to run out on some of the most valuable strategies!

How to Guarantee an Audit

Most of us would rather have a root canal without anesthesia than face an IRS audit. Fortunately, your chances of winding up in that particular hot seat are fairly low. Audit odds vary according to how much you earn and how you earn it, but generally range from 0.9% (for incomes up to $200,000) to 12.1% (for incomes over $1 million). That means most of us can take comfort knowing our chances of winding up in the crosshairs are slim.  

Now, if you look up "guaranteed audit" in the dictionary, you won't find it, because it's two separate words. Still, there is one way you guarantee yourself an audit. And some of your most prominent fellow citizens are working night and day to put themselves in that position. So, how do you get there? Easy . . . just get yourself elected President of the United States!  

Take a look at Section 4.2.1.11 of the Internal Revenue Manual and you'll see it in black and white: "The individual income tax returns for the President and Vice-President are subject to mandatory examinations." Yikes! As if it's not bad enough having everyone from the New York Times to the National Enquirer all up in your business, now you'd have to contend with the IRS, too!  

Presidential audits are no ordinary examinations. The Internal Revenue Manual spells out the kind of excruciatingly detailed rules that you might imagine for the "First 1040":

•"The returns should be kept in an orange folder at all times." (We wouldn't want to confuse them with the President's nuclear launch codes in the red folder.) 

•"The returns should not be exposed to viewing by other employees." (Of course, Presidents routinely release their returns to the public, so employees without "Double Secret Presidential Clearance" will just have to find them online.)

•"The returns should be locked in a secure drawer or cabinet when the examiner is away from the work area." (Gotta keep those Russian teenagers from hacking in and running up the balance on the President's American Express!)  

The kid-glove treatment doesn't stop when the audit ends, either. Presidential returns "must be closed directly to the Employee Audit Reviewer in Baltimore Technical Services. The 'Other' box in the 'Forward to Technical Services' section of Form 3198 must be checked and the examiner should notate 'President (or Vice-President) Examination; Forward to Baltimore Technical Services.'" That's reassuring — can you imagine how embarrassing it would be send the Presidential return to the wrong archive!  

On the bright side, if you do find yourself having to put up with that mandatory annual audit, you'll get some nice perks out of it: a fleet of limousines, a comfy jumbo jet for avoiding the TSA's usual "perp walk", and a roomy white house on 18 acres in the middle of Washington, DC. You can even walk to work! Still, there might be a nagging feeling in the back of your mind, knowing the IRS has isolated your return like an Ebola specimen — in its own special orange folder, under lock and key.

 We realize that you aren't getting ready to move to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But we make sure that our tax planning advice can stand up to a Presidential-level audit. It all starts with a proactive plan to take advantage of every legal deduction, credit, and strategy to cut your tax. So call us for that plan, and you'll have more to contribute to your White House run!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Art of the Tax Loss

Everyone knows what a hobby is, right? It's something you do to relax and have fun, not something you do as an occupation. And everyone knows what a business is, too. It's something you do to make money. So everyone should know the difference between a hobby and a business, right? Well, it turns out that's a harder question than you might think — especially where our friends at the IRS are concerned.

This week's story concerns Susan Crile, a tenured professor of studio art at Hunter College in New York City. Teaching art is her "business," and she earns a respectable professional income from it — from 2004 through 2009, her salary grew from $85,999 to $106,058.

But Susan was a distinguished painter and print maker long before securing her coveted teaching position. She's sold 356 works of art since 1971. Her work hangs in the permanent collections of at least 25 museums, including the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Guggenheim Museum. It also graces Fortune 500 and government offices, including the Federal Reserve Board, the Library of Congress, and various U.S. embassies. Criles works approximately 30 hours per week in her Manhattan studio during the academic year, and full time at a larger studio upstate in the summer. She also travels extensively for her work, including a trip to Kuwait to depict burning oil fields during the first Gulf War.

You would hope that an artist as accomplished as Criles would enjoy fame and fortune from her work. She may be famous, at least in the art world, but fortune seems to be lagging. She's grossed as much as $111,815 from sales in a year, but never shown a profit. From 2004 through 2009, Criles reported just $15,865 in income from her art. But for that same period, she reported $286,976 in expenses. These included the cost of materials, of course, but also expenses for vehicles, mortgage interest (presumably on her studio property), travel, meals and entertainment, utilities, research, maintenance, and local transportation.

Unfortunately, you don't have to take any art classes to become a tax auditor. Maybe that's why the critics at the IRS panned her tax returns. They called her art a hobby, not a business, and used the so-called "hobby loss" rule to disallow all her deductions exceeding her income. Then they presented her with their review — a bill for $98,547 in taxes and penalties!

Tax Court judge Albert Lauber agreed that some of Criles's deductions, like telephone and cable TV bills, newspaper subscriptions, tips to her doormen, and cabs to the opera, museums, and social events, were inappropriately personal and ought to be disallowed. But then he addressed the real question: had she created her art with a bona fide intent to earn a profit? Fortunately, the tax system offers a nine-factor "paint by numbers" test for distinguishing a hobby from a business, and the judge concluded that Criles's time, effort, and expertise outweighed her spotty income over time. Deduction upheld!

Do you have a hobby that makes (or loses) money? Maybe it isn't really a "hobby" at all, and maybe you can take advantage of it come tax time. The only way to know for sure is to call us and ask for a plan to make the most of your activity. So call us today while there's still time to plan for 2014, and together we'll see if we can paint a picture of savings!

What Do You Give the Man Who Has Everything?

Last week, New York Yankee shortstop and future Hall-of-Famer Derek Jeter played his last Major League Baseball game. He chopped a single to third in the third inning to drive in a run, then took himself out for good. That final hit brings his total to 3,465 hits, along with a .310 batting average, five Gold Glove awards, and five World Series rings. Jeter was that rare player who stayed with a single club for his entire career. He's also untainted by so-called "performance enhancing drugs" plaguing the game (or, in the case of Jeter's teammate Alex Rodriguez, you can leave off "performance enhancing"). Jeter goes out a very popular guy — and that popularity is about to send him into extra innings with our friends at the IRS.

Jeter earned over $265 million over the course of his 20-year career. And that's before his endorsement deals with Gatorade, Fleet Bank, Ford, VISA, Discover Card, Florsheim, Gillette, Skippy peanut butter, XM Satellite radio, and even his own Nike shoe. If ever there were a guy who could buy anything he wanted, it's "Captain Clutch."

But that didn't stop the baseball world from showering him with gifts upon his retirement. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays gave him a custom-painted kayak that cost more than $6,000. The Cincinnati Reds gave him framed autographed jerseys of fellow shortstops Dave Concepcion and Barry Larkin, along with three photos from the weekend in Cincinnati when Jeter was named captain of the Yankees. The Seattle Mariners gave him a seat from the Kingdome, where he made his major league debut on May 29, 1995. Even the lowly Chicago Cubs, which hosted Jeter for just five career games, honored him with a number from the hand-operated scoreboard. All told, the gifts are said to be worth about $33,000.

So, naturally, Jeter will owe another $16,000 or so in tax on those gifts. That includes 39.6% federal income tax, 3.8% Medicare tax, plus whatever state and local taxes apply where he receives the gifts.

Wait a minute. We're talking gifts here, right? How can Jeter owe income tax on gifts?

It all comes down to why the giver makes the gift. If a gift is made out of "detached and disinterested generosity," like when you give your children a birthday present, the officials in charge of collecting income tax generally turn a blind eye. (If the value of gifts to any single individual exceed $14,000 per year, the officials in charge of collecting gift taxes start getting interested.) But if the gift is really a marketing gesture in disguise — like when a team hosts a ceremony to present Jeter with his gift, then uses it as part of its marketing — that "gift" becomes taxable income.

What could Jeter do to avoid the tax? He could refuse the gifts, which wouldn't seem very sporting. Or he could request they go to his charitable foundation. But that would defeat the purpose of gifts like the Cincinnati shortstops' jerseys that are intended to be sentimental rather than valuable.

Jeter's final-season salary was $12 million, which works out to about $74,000 per game, or $8,230 per inning. So the good news is that the tax on the gifts should only eat up a couple of inning's worth of income.

Are your business associates planning to lavish you with gifts this holiday season? Call us. We know you won't be happy to pay tax on them, but at least we can help you with a plan to pay the least amount allowed. And remember, we're here for the rest of your teammates, too!

Taxing Situation

MTV's Jersey Shore premiered in late 2009 and quickly became the network's most-watched series ever. Cast members Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino, Jennifer "JWoww" Farley, and their outrageous, hard-partying housemates have become New Jersey's most famous family since The Sopranos, trying their best to put the "fun" back in "dysfunctional."

Of course, not everyone was in on the joke. Critics objected that the show painted New Jerseyites and Italian-Americans as drunken, brawling louts, obsessed with their "GTL" (gym, tanning, and laundry, for those not in-the-know). New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was so embarrassed at their antics that he vetoed a $420,000 tax credit, dubbed the "Snooki subsidy," for the show's producers. "As Chief Executive," he explained, "I am duty-bound to ensure that taxpayers are not footing a $420,000 bill for a project which does nothing more than perpetuate misconceptions about the state and its citizens."

Now the Jersey Shore crew is making tax news again. But this time, the numbers are even higher and the consequences even more serious. Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted "The Situation" for one count of conspiracy, two counts of filing false tax returns for 2010 through 2012, and one count of failing to file a return for 2011.

Sorrentino and his cast mates may look like the sort of people the word "bonehead" was invented to describe. But when it came to cashing in on their 15 minutes of fame, they weren't slouches. Snooki made as much as $30,000 per episode, commanded $10,000 for personal appearances, and rang the bell to open the New York Stock Exchange. Sorrentino was even more ambitious, charging up to $48,000 for nightclub openings and other events. He also earned millions more from endorsements, a partnership in a vodka company, an "autobiography," a workout DVD, clothing and vitamin lines, and a comic book featuring himself as a shirtless superhero. (The guy made more than $5 million in 2010 alone, which has to make you wonder if you're in the right business — and if there's any justice in the world.)

Now the government is alleging that Sorrentino and his brother Marc avoided tax on $8.9 million of income. The indictment charges that they submitted false documents understating their receipts, and false personal returns failing to report all their income. They also fraudulently "claimed millions of dollars in personal expenses as business expenses, including payments for high-end vehicles and clothing, personal grooming expenses, and distributions – or direct payments – from the businesses to personal bank accounts." It's easy enough to believe that a guy who made his fame on "gym, tanning, and laundry" would think he could deduct the occasional tube of hair gel. Still, $8.9 million does seem a bit excessive.

Sorrentino has pled not guilty to the charges. Meanwhile, he's free on $250,000 bail. He's surrendered his passport and agreed not to leave the New York-New Jersey area. He's also subject to random drug testing and prohibited from drinking alcohol until his trial. Of course, a little sobriety looks like a holiday on the shore compared to what he's facing if he's convicted — the conspiracy charge alone could mean five years in a tightly structured living environment that discourages expressions of personal dress and style.

Sadly, "The Situation" isn't the only Garden State reality star facing IRS heat. "Real Housewife of New Jersey" Teresa Giudice and her husband are awaiting sentencing on their own tax and fraud charges. What's the matter with these people? Don't they know the real key to paying less tax is a plan? And don't they know they could have come to us for that plan? Don't embarrass your cast mates like they did. Call us, and we'll script out a plan that helps you enjoy endless summers on whatever shore you choose.

Lipstick on a Pig?

The personal finance website mint.com reports the average American woman spends $15,000 on makeup in her lifetime, including $3,770 on mascara, $2,750 on eye shadow, and $1,780 on lipstick. Americans spent $33.3 billion on cosmetics and other beauty products in 2010 alone. ("Being a woman is easy and inexpensive," said no one, ever.)

Our friends at the Internal Revenue Service don't bat an eyelash at all that spending. Cosmetics companies pay billions in taxes. And the product they sell is a nondeductible personal item. But that doesn't stop people from trying — including, we now learn, former United States Senator Scott Brown.

Brown has always been an ambitious sort. In 2010, after a career as a lawyer and state legislator, he won a special election to replace the late Ted Kennedy, becoming the first Republican Senator from Massachusetts since 1972. Then, in 2012, he lost his reelection bid to former Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren. Following his defeat, he moved north to New Hampshire and announced plans to run from the Granite State.

But Brown has always had a bit of a vain streak, too. At age 22, while studying law at Boston College, he won Cosmopolitan's "Sexiest Man in America" contest, posing nude for the magazine's centerfold. So it can't have come as too much of a surprise when he made six years of tax returns available to reporters and revealed that he deducted $2,149 in 2010 and $1,401 in 2011 for "TV makeup and grooming" to help promote his memoirs.

At first blush, deducting makeup might seem perfectly appropriate. Brown probably wouldn't wear it if he hadn't been promoting his book. The problem here is that the rules say that's not enough. IRS Publication 529 reports that you can deduct the cost of work clothes if: 1) "you must wear them as a condition of your employment" and 2) "the clothes are not suitable for everyday wear." Courts have extended this foundation to grooming expenses, holding that they're inherently personal and nondeductible.

Most recently, the Tax Court reviewed the case of Anietra Hamper, who worked as a morning and noon news anchor for WNBS-TV in Columbus. Her station's Women's Wardrobe Guidelines required her to maintain her hair in a neat and professional cut and keep her fingernails at a reasonable length, finished with conservatively colored polish. Yet the Court smeared off thousands in deductions she took for contact lenses, makeup, haircuts, manicures, and teeth whitening.

Last week, a Democratic watchdog group by the name of the American Democracy Legal Fund sent a letter asking the IRS to investigate Brown's deductions and citing a litany of cases holding that personal grooming and makeup expenses are nondeductible. Brown's campaign glossed over the letter as a partisan attack. But Brown is polling about four points behind incumbent Jeanne Shaheen, in a close election that will help determine which party controls the Senate for the final two years of President Obama's administration. This sort of negative publicity can't help Brown's chances. And it does nothing to conceal the stereotype of politicians as slick, blow-dried phonies.

Only time will tell if the IRS takes up Brown's case, or if the controversy affects his election. In the meantime, call us if you're worried about blemishes in your finances. We'll give you the plan you need to look flawless under the hottest lights!

Can We Talk?

The world of comedy lost a giant this month. Joan Rivers may have topped out at just 5'2" and weighed 110 pounds soaking wet, but when it comes to influence, she towered above her peers. Rivers established that women can be just as funny as men and paved the way for the Sarah Silvermans and Tina Feys of today. She could alienate people with sometimes-offensive takes on her fellow celebrities. ("Is Elizabeth Taylor fat? Her favorite food is seconds.") But she was never afraid to turn her wit on herself. ("I've had so much plastic surgery, when I die, they will donate my body to Tupperware.")

Rivers hated Washington, and considered herself apolitical. But it's hard to go 50 years in the public eye without having something to say, especially when it comes to taxes. So here are three quick observations:

• Money was important to Rivers. ("People say that money is not the key to happiness, but I always figured if you have enough money, you can have a key made.") She worked hard to make it and worked hard to keep it. Back in 2012, she criticized President Obama's proposal to raise taxes: "If I work very hard, I should be able to gather the fruits of my labor." Of course, this was a woman who also said "I'm definitely in favor of a monarchy because they're there, they look good, and always have good gift shops when you leave the palace." So, you might want to take her specific policy recommendations with a grain of salt!
• Rivers wasn't afraid to take on the jokers at the IRS. Back in 1993, she lost a Tax Court case involving disability insurance premiums. The dispute established the rule that a corporation can't deduct those premiums on an employee unless there's a contractually binding obligation to pay the benefits to the employee. (We'll skip the details because they're so boring and technical that even she couldn't make them amusing.)
• Rivers will get a pretty nice final tax break from the IRS, even though it comes too late for her to enjoy it. Code Section 2053 says that when it comes time to calculating estate tax, you can deduct funeral expenses. And Rivers made it clear that she wanted to go out in style. Here's what she said in her 2012 book, I Hate Everyone . . . Starting with Me:
  "When I die, I want my funeral to be a huge showbiz affair with lights, cameras, action. I want Craft services, I want paparazzi and I want publicists making a scene! I want it to be Hollywood all the way. I don’t want some rabbi rambling on; I want Meryl Streep crying, in five different accents. I don’t want a eulogy; I want Bobby Vinton to pick up my head and sing 'Mr. Lonely.' I want to look gorgeous, better dead than I do alive. I want to be buried in a Valentino gown and I want Harry Winston to make me a toe tag. And I want a wind machine so that even in the casket my hair is blowing just like Beyoncé’s."

She may not have gotten the funeral she joked about. But she did get a pack of celebrities, a troupe of bagpipes, and a celebration of a life well lived.

Joan Rivers entertained millions over the course of her career. But there's nothing entertaining about wasting money on taxes you don't have to pay. And you'll get the last laugh if you know you've done everything you can to keep what you make. So call us for a plan to pay less, before the comics at the IRS throw out the punch line for you!

No Such Thing As a Tax-Free Lunch

Silicon Valley's high-tech employers are famous for feeding their employees at work. It's not entirely selfless — feeding people helps attract talented workers and keep them chained to their desks. At this point, it's no longer a novelty — it's an expected part of Silicon Valley culture. Companies routinely make headlines for luring away each others' executives and programmers. But back in 2008, Facebook made headlines for poaching Google's chef!

Employers know that if they're going to use lunch to compete for talent, it oughta be good. The average computer nerd may be perfectly happy scarfing down Cheetos in his parents' basement. But six-figure software engineers demand more. So, for example, Google offers employees 30 different "cafes" at their Mountain View campus, serving delicacies like squash-corn-pecan dumplings, and daal saagwala from Northern India: "a mix of soft kale, spinach, and mustard greens, tossed with three types of beans and lentils in a broth singing with distinct cumin notes and a pleasant cilantro flourish." (We suspect that if they had served anything in honor of last month's International Bacon Day, it would have been so insanely good that you could never look a pig in the eye again.)

The best part? It's all free! But that may not be true much longer, if the food critics at the IRS have their way. Last month, they released their 2014-2015 Priority Guidance Plan, which reveals their 317 priority "projects we intend to work on actively during the plan year." And there on Page 7, sandwiched between "Regulations under §86 regarding rules for lump-sum elections" and "Regulations on cafeteria plans under §125," you'll find "Guidance under §§119 and 132 regarding employer-provided meals."

Ironically, free lunches have nothing to do with "cafeteria plans." The relevant regulations at 26 CFR 1.119-1 provide that "The value of meals furnished to an employee by his employer shall be excluded from the employee’s gross income if two tests are met: (i) The meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer, and (ii) the meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer."

Sounds pretty straightforward, right? Marketing software maker Moz.com gives employees a never-ending cereal bar. They serve it at their business headquarters, and they do it to keep employees from running to the In-N-Out Burger down the street. So what's the problem? Well, the IRS thinks that all that Cap'n Crunch may be more than just a convenient employee perk. They're worried that it's actually disguised compensation. And they're licking their chops at the thought of all the tasty revenue they can raise if they're right. (Don't even get them started on that 24-7 on-tap keg at apartmentrental.com!)

If the IRS concludes that meals are part of compensation, they'll be included in employees' W2s and taxed just like the rest of their paychecks. And while the occasional daal saagwala might not sound like much, those meals can add up fast. Let's see here . . . 1,000 employees eating $8 meals, five times per week, adds up to $2 million in new taxable income per year from just this one example — plus more for Social Security and Medicare. No wonder the carnivores at the IRS are sharpening their knives! (Of course, they'll have to issue even more new regulations telling us how to value all those meals. But bureaucrats love writing regulations even more than they love Cap'n Crunch!)

You may not be worried about all this if you're not getting a free lunch at work. But remember, the IRS has 316 other "priority projects" on its plate. And it's our job to keep an eye out for the ones that hit your wallet. So call us when you're ready for the plan you need to protect yourself from them all!