Posts Tagged ‘internal revenue code’

The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Don't go to jailThe IRS has issued a detailed, 80-page document discussing and rebutting many of the more common frivolous arguments made by individuals and groups that oppose compliance with federal tax laws. An accompanying news release reminds taxpayers that the penalty for frivolous tax returns is $5,000, and applies when a person submits a tax return or other specified submission, and any portion of the submission is based on a position that IRS identifies as frivolous. The tax attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC frequently see taxpayers try to raise these arguments.  Partners Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA and Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. generally convince them to be realistic and deal with the IRS in a forthright manner.

The IRS’s “The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments” responds to some of the more common frivolous “legal” arguments about the federal tax system. Each contention is briefly explained, followed by a discussion of the legal authority that rejects the contention.

The document covers these broad categories of frivolous arguments: 

  • Various contentions that: the federal income tax system is voluntary; terms in the Code such as taxable income, gross income and “the taxpayer” are improperly defined; and payment of taxes is unconstitutional. Other arguments in the category have fictional legal bases, for example, that IRS is not an agency of the U.S., or that taxpayers are entitled to the refund of social security taxes paid over their lifetime. 

 

  • Frivolous arguments in collection due process cases, including various contentions that assessments are invalid, or that the statutory notice of deficiency, notice of federal tax lien or statutory notice and demand is invalid.

 

  • Contentions that the Tax Court is not authorized to decide legal issues, or that IRS personnel do not have the authority to seize property in satisfaction of unpaid taxes, or that IRS employees lack credentials.

 

A final section of the IRS’s frivolous tax arguments document explains in detail the penalties that courts may impose on those who pursue tax cases on frivolous grounds, and cites scores of cases rejecting various frivolous arguments and imposing penalties.

For a copy of this complete report, contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com.

If you or someone you know owes taxes and needs help dealing with the IRS or state taxing authority, please contact Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. by e-mail at tquinn@mclaughlinquinn.com or Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or either of them by phone at 401-421-5115.

Many business tax law changes go into effect in 2010

Thursday, January 7th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many important tax changes go into effect in 2010.  These non-indexing changes result from various laws that were enacted and regulations and other guidance issued over the past few years. This post reviews the non-indexing tax law changes for 2010 for businesses.

Deduction for domestic production activities increases. For tax years beginning after 2009, the IRC §199 deduction for domestic production activities increases. Taxpayers will be able to claim a deduction generally equal to 9% (up from 6% for tax years beginning in 2007-2009) of the lesser of: (1) the taxpayer’s “qualified production activities income” (QPAI) for the tax year or (2) taxable income (modified adjusted gross income, for individual taxpayers) without regard to this deduction, for the tax year. (IRC §199(a); Reg. §1.199-1(a)).  The deduction is further limited to 50% of the W-2 wages of the employer for the tax year.

Smaller employers may establish combined plans. For plan years beginning after 2009, employers with 500 or fewer employees may establish a combined defined benefit-401(k) plan (a “DB(k) plan”). In general, the defined benefit rules apply to the defined benefit portion of the plan and the defined contribution rules apply to the defined contribution portion of the plan. The 401(k) component must have automatic enrollment and must meet minimum matching contribution requirements. (IRC §414(x)(2))

Nonspouse beneficiary rollover option mandatory for qualified plans. Under §108(f) of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008 (WRERA, P.L. 110-458), qualified retirement plans must offer nonspouse beneficiaries the opportunity to roll over an inherited plan account balance to an IRA set up to receive the rollover on the nonspouse beneficiary’s behalf, effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2009. For earlier plan years, plans could, but were not required to, offer nonspouse beneficiaries this rollover option.

Increased penalty for failure to file partnership or S corporation returns. Civil penalties apply for failure to file a partnership and S corporation returns. The penalty is a statutory dollar amount times the number of partners or shareholders for each month (or fraction of a month) that the failure continues, up to a maximum of 12 months. The base amount on which a penalty is computed for a failure with respect to filing either a partnership or S corporation return for a tax year beginning after December 31, 2009, increases from $89 to $195 per partner or shareholder. (IRC §6698(b)(1) and IRC §6699(b)(1))

Electronic filing changes go into effect. Beginning in 2010, IRS will allow the electronic filing of Schedule R (Form 941), Allocation Schedule for Aggregate Form 941 Filers, using the Employment Tax e-file System. Schedule R is a new form that must be completed by consolidated Form 941 filers, beginning with the first quarter 2010 Form 941. Form 2678, Employer/Payer Appointment of Agent, must be mailed to the applicable address listed on the instructions for the agent to be eligible to file Schedule R. After receiving IRS approval, the agent must file one Form 941 return for each tax period, using the agent’s own employer identification number (EIN), regardless of the number of employers for whom the agent acts. The agent must maintain records that will disclose the full wages paid for each of his or her clients, as reported on the Schedule R. (IRS Publication 3823, Employment Tax e-file System Implementation and User Guide)

Standard mileage rate changes. The optional mileage allowance for owned or leased autos (including vans, pickups or panel trucks) is 50¢ per mile for business travel after 2009 (down from 55¢ per mile for 2009). For 2010, the depreciation component of the mileage rate is 23¢ per mile (up from 21¢ per mile for 2009 and 2008).

Employers that require employees to supply their own autos may reimburse them at a rate that doesn’t exceed 50¢ per mile for employment-connected business mileage during 2010 (down from 55¢ per mile for 2009), whether the autos are owned or leased. The reimbursement is treated as a tax-free accountable-plan reimbursement if the employee substantiates the time, place, business purpose, and mileage of each trip. Additionally, an employee’s personal use of lower-priced company autos during 2010 may be valued at 50¢ per mile if the conditions specified in Reg. §1.61-21(e)(1) are met. (Rev Proc 2009-54, 2009-51 IRB)

Many business tax breaks expired at the end of 2009. Unless Congress acts to retroactively revive them, all of the following business tax breaks won’t be available this year because they expired at the end of 2009. Note that tax breaks that would be extended by the “Tax Extenders Act” as passed by the House of Representatives in December of 2009 are indicated with an asterisk.

… Additional first-year 50% bonus depreciation for qualified property under IRC §168(k)(2) (but note that certain aircraft and long-production-period property continues to be eligible if placed in service in 2010). In addition, the $8,000 increase in the first-year depreciation limit for passenger automobiles that are qualified property also expired at the end of 2009.

 … For tax years beginning in 2010, (a) the maximum amount that may be expensed under IRC §179 is $134,000 (down from $250,000 for tax years beginning in 2008 or 2009); and (b) the maximum annual expensing amount generally is reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of IRC §179 property placed in service during the tax year in excess of $530,000 (down from $800,000 for tax years beginning in 2008 or 2009).

 … Incremental research credit under IRC §41.*

 … Election to accelerate AMT and research credits in lieu of additional first-year depreciation under IRC §168(k)(4).

 … Five-year depreciation for farming business machinery and equipment under IRC §168(e)(3)(B)(vii).*

 … Fifteen-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant buildings and improvements, and qualified retail improvements under IRC §168(e)(3)(E)(iv), IRC §168(e)(3)(E)(v), and IRC §168(e)(3)(E)(ix).*

 … Deduction allowable for income attributable to domestic production activities in Puerto Rico under IRC §199.*

 … Expensing of “brownfields” environmental remediation costs under IRC §198(h).*

 … Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes under IRC §45L.

 … Encouragement of contributions of capital gain real property made for conservation purposes under IRC §170(b)(1)(E) and IRC §170(b)(2)(B).*

 … Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory under IRC §170(e)(3)(C).*

 … Enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book inventories to public schools under IRC §170(e)(3)(D).*

 … Enhanced deduction for corporate contributions of computer equipment for educational purposes under IRC §170(e)(6)(G).*

 … The active financing exception from Subpart F of the Code. (IRC §953, IRC §954)*

 … The look-through treatment of payments between related controlled foreign corporations. (IRC §954(c))*

 … Seven-year straight line cost recovery period for property used for land improvement and support facilities at motorsports entertainment complexes. (IRC §168(i)(15))*

 … The railroad track maintenance credit. (IRC §45G )*

 … Film and television producers’ election to expense the first $15 million of production costs incurred in the U.S. ($20 million if the costs are incurred in economically depressed areas in the U.S.). (IRC §181)*

 … The credit for training mine rescue team members. (IRC §45N)*

 … Election to expense 50% of the cost of qualified underground mine safety equipment. (IRC §179E)*

 … The credit for eligible small business employers equal to 20% of the sum of differential wage payments to activated military reservists. (IRC)*

 … The tax treatment of interest-related dividends, short-term capital gain dividends, and other special rules applicable to foreign shareholders that invest in regulated investment companies (RICs). (IRC §871(k))*

 … Suspension on the taxable income limit for purposes of claiming depletion deductions on a marginal oil or gas well. (IRC §613A(c)(6))

 … The new markets tax credit. (IRC §45D(f)(1))*

Estate Tax Likely to Expire, Spelling Higher Taxes for Less Wealthy Heirs

Sunday, December 20th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

Estate Tax 2010With the estate tax set to expire in two weeks, it appears that Senate Democrats will be unable to persuade Republicans to extend the current law for even a couple of months until a more permanent solution can be devised. This means that there will be no estate tax during 2010. Although Congress may well reinstate the tax retroactively in 2010, it’s entirely possible that it won’t. If that happens, a few thousand very wealthy families will have reason to celebrate, while tens of thousands of taxpayers of more modest means could face significant tax bills following the death of a loved one — as well as great confusion for executors.

Congress has had nine years to prevent this from happening but hasn’t been able to. Under the provisions of a Bush-era tax-cut bill enacted in 2001, the value of estates exempt from the tax has been gradually raised over the past eight years while the tax rate on estates has been reduced, so that in 2009 only an individual estate worth $3.5 million or more is taxed, at a rate of 45 percent. For the year 2010, according to the 2001 law, the estate tax disappears entirely, only to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more, which is where things stood before the 2001 change.

Loss of Step-Up Means Step Down for Many Taxpayers

The catch for taxpayers of more modest means, however, is that for 2010 the estate tax is replaced with a 15 percent capital gains tax on inherited assets that are later sold. Normally someone inheriting propery at an individual’s death gets a “step-up in basis” in the property. That is, the value of the property for determining capital gains tax due is calculated at the time it is inherited, not when it was originally bought.

But the law eliminating the estate tax in 2010 also largely does away with the basis step-up rules. This means that those inheriting estates will have to pay capital gains taxes on any assets sold based on the original price paid for the asset, after an exemption for the first $1.3 million in capital gains (plus $3 million for assets transferred to a surviving spouse).

Let’s say your father dies and leaves you a home worth $1.5 million and a $500,000 portfolio of stocks purchased at various times over the past 40 years. If you decided to sell any of these assets, you’d normally pay little or no capital gains tax on the sales. The new provisions mean that you have to calculate capital gains based on the value of the home and the stocks when your father bought them, not when you inherited them. That could be very expensive, not to mention time-consuming in trying to ascertain the original price your father paid for everything.

“If we do not extend our estate tax law, all taxpayers, all heirs will be subject to massive, massive confusion in trying to determine the value of their underlying asset,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) said on the Senate floor.

The chief tax counsel for the House Ways and Means Committee estimates that while extending the current estate tax law would affect about 6,000 estates, 71,400 estates could face new capital gains taxes if the estate tax disappears. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “at least 62,500 of these are estates that would not owe any estate tax if the 2009 rules were continued and that thus would be adversely affected by estate tax repeal. Farm and business estates would constitute a disproportionately large share of this group.” Small farms and businesses are the groups whose interests opponents of the estate tax have claimed they are defending.

The House passed a bill in early December permanently extending the 2009 estate tax rules, which will bring in an estimated $25 billion this year by imposing the 45 percent rate on estates over $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple). The Senate’s Democratic leadership wanted to pass a similar bill and put it on President Obama’s desk before the estate tax expired at the end of the year, but they have been blocked by united Senate Republicans who prefer a lower tax rate of 35 percent and a higher exclusion amount of $5 million ($10 million for couples).

“Republicans who claim to have accomplished something by blocking an extension need to explain why raising taxes on the middle class while lowering them for the very rich is something to be proud of,” the Los Angeles Times editorialized.

The Perils of Going Retroactive

Sen. Baucus has pledged to try to restore the estate tax retroactively in 2010. This would undo the capital gains increase, but it could also create fertile ground for lawsuits by those whose family members die between January 1, 2010, and the date when any retroactive law is enacted.

“I can guarantee this: if they succeed in getting retroactive in hiking the death tax from zero to 45 percent, there are going to be lawsuits,” said Dick Patten, president of the American Family Business Foundation, which opposes the estate tax. “Its going to be messy, its going to be noisy.” (For an excellent discussion by Forbes.com of the mess that a lapse in the estate tax could create, click here .”Beneficiaries will deal with uncertainty for years,” warns one tax expert.)

In a 1994 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s ban on the enactment of ex-post facto laws doesn’t apply to tax legislation, provided the retroactive application is “supported by a legitimate legislative purpose furthered by rational means”. United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26 (1994). Since most estates don’t file tax returns until about nine months after someone dies, if Congress can come to an agreement quickly in 2010 the problems caused by a retroactive law may be limited. But Bloomberg.com notes that “The pressure to reach agreement may breathe new life into” into the Republicans’ “compromise proposal” of a 35 percent tax on couples’ estates worth more than $10 million.

For more information on how the estate tax laws will affect you, contact F. Moore McLaughlin, Esq. at 401-421-5115 x212 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at jsugarman@mclaughlinquinn.com.

IRS Releases New Estate Tax Return But Is Silent on 2010 repeal

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

IRS has released a revised Form 706 for use by estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2008 and before January 1, 2010.  Changes reflected in the revision include some law and indexing changes. The revision makes no mention of next year’s scheduled repeal of the estate tax.IRS Form 706

Items reflected on the revised form. The instructions stress that this revision is to be used only for decedents dying in calendar year 2009. They also note these changes:

  • The applicable exclusion amount for estates of decedents dying in calendar year 2009 is $3.5 million.
  • Various dollar amounts and limitations relevant to Form 706 are indexed for inflation. For decedents dying in 2009, the following amounts have increased: (a) the ceiling on special-use valuation is $1 million; and (b) the amount used in computing the 2% portion of estate tax payable in installments is $1.33 million. IRS says it will publish amounts for future years in an annual revenue procedure.

Reminder. The instructions also point out that, in 2008, IRS added a worksheet to help executors figure how much of the estate tax may be paid in installments under Code Sec. 6166.

Which estates must file. For decedents dying in 2009, Form 706 must be filed by the executor for the estate of every U.S. citizen or resident whose gross estate, plus adjusted taxable gifts and specific exemption, is more than $3.5 million.
(more…)

Preparing for more permissive IRA-to-Roth-IRA conversion rules in 2010

Wednesday, August 12th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

2010 will be a pivotal one for retirement planning, as it will be the first year in which taxpayers will be able to convert funds in regular IRAs (as well as qualified plan funds) to Roth IRAs regardless of their income level. The tax attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC are currently advising clients and CPAs on these new rules.  This new conversion option poses significant tax planning challenges and opportunities for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The following takes a look at the new conversion option, and explains how to prepare for it.

Conversions to Roth IRAs. For 2009, taxpayers (other than married persons filing separately) with modified adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or less may convert IRA-to-Roth Conversionamounts in a traditional IRA to amounts in a Roth IRA. Amounts from a SEP-IRA or a SIMPLE IRA also may be converted to a Roth IRA, but a conversion from a SIMPLE IRA may be made only after the 2-year period beginning on the date on which the taxpayer first participated in any SIMPLE IRA maintained by the taxpayer’s employer.

For purposes of conversions to Roth IRAs, AGI is defined as it is for traditional IRA purposes except that it does not include income resulting from the conversion from a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. AGI-for purposes of determining conversion eligibility only-does not include any required minimum distribution from an IRA under Code Sec. 408(a)(6) and Code Sec. 408(b)(3).

(more…)

IRS seeks more taxes on your cell phone

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

The IRS says it is looking to make it easier for taxpayers to comply with recordkeeping requirements for employer-provided cell phones. Others see this as another attack on small business.  A new notice from the IRS confirms several IRS proposals to simplify the procedures under which employers substantiate an employee’s business use of employer-provided cellphones.  The notice also requests suggestions for alternative approaches.cell-phone-tax

In 2008, two identical bills-H.R. 5450 and S. 2668, both entitled “Modernize Our Bookkeeping In the Law for Employee’s Cell Phone Act of 2008″-were introduced in the House and Senate to remove cell phones and similar telecommunications equipment from the category of listed property. These measures, which had bipartisan support, and were backed by a number of companies and business associations, were never enacted. Perhaps that is why IRS is taking the matter into its own hands.

Under Internal Revenue Code Section 132, an employee may exclude from gross income the business use of an employer-provided cell phone as a working condition fringe benefit. However, because cell phones are listed property in Code Section 280F, strict substantiation requirements must be satisfied for business cell phone usage to qualify for the code Section 132 exclusion. Moreover, any personal usage of an employer-provided cell phone is a taxable fringe benefit. Thus, the current rules require documentation of the business and personal use of the cell phone.

(more…)

Regulation of Tax Return Preparers

Monday, June 8th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

Tom Quinn and I work with clients every day in matters before the IRS, the Rhode Island Division of Taxation and the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.  Our representation is focused on audits, appeals, court cases, and collections.  Somewhere along the way, each one of the clients has filed tax returns.  Sometimes, though, not until they have engaged our firm.

tax-returnTom and I have reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of tax returns throughout our respective careers.  We have seen some that are properly and accurately prepared.  We have seen others that are complete disasters.  What is interesting is that no license is required to become a paid tax return preparer.  Tax return preparers do not have to be licensed by the federal government or any state agency in order to prepare tax returns for a fee.

This may change soon.  The IRS is working on rules that will require tax return preparers to be licensed.  This licensing requirement is being brought about by the IRS in an attempt to reduce fraud and improve compliance.  A proposal is said to be forthcoming before the end of the year.  Most analysts feel that this change will be for the good and will mostly impact the small mom-and-pop tax return preparers, and that the national firms and CPAs won’t feel much impact at all.

Personally, I think this is a great move.  Of all the returns that I have reviewed, by far the worst ones are by the lesser-trained, unlicensed tax return preparers.  Tax returns prepared by CPAs or enrolled agents tend to be more accurate and better reflect the tax laws.  This is not to say that all CPAs and EAs are great and that all unlicensed tax return preparers are terrible.  But, based on my experience over the last 16 or so years, the numbers speak for themselves.

Check back towards the end of the year for an update on the status of these new rules.  Maybe they will be in place by the next filing season.

Social Engineering through Taxes

Monday, April 27th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

As a tax attorney and CPA, I have studied the federal Internal Revenue Code extensively over the course of the last 20 years. Some people may tell me to get a life and that I could not have possibly chosen a more boring or inane field of study. socialengineering1

For my entire life, I have always loved puzzles. My mom tells my two young sons how good I was at solving puzzles as a kid. I think of the Internal Revenue Code as a puzzle, a big complex and multi-faceted puzzle. My understanding of this puzzle started to develop in great detail during my studies at New York University while obtaining my Masters of Law in Taxation. In particular, famed tax expert Prof. Martin Ginsberg taught my class on tax policy. For the first time, I started to see how the Internal Revenue Code is used not merely for the purpose of raising revenue for the federal government, but for social engineering.

If the sole purpose of the Internal Revenue Code was to raise money for the government to spend, then a flat tax, with no or few deductions, would seem to be appropriate. Perhaps that was the idea when the U.S. constitution was amended to allow the income tax. Now, however, things have changed. And, I don’t see them going back.

Here are some examples of social engineering through the tax laws. Some lawmaker determined that Americans should own their own homes and that the tax law should punish those that don’t. To impose this idea, homeowners can take tax deductions for interest and real estate taxes on their homes while renters, who pay these same costs indirectly, cannot. Another example is the credit for day care expenses for children. Where is the credit for stay-at-home moms? There are only about a million more examples.

These days the tax laws are so complicated that even the Treasury Secretary and other high-level administration officials cannot even understand and comply with the rules. How can the average person or business owner be expected to? Removing the social engineering provisions and other Congress-blessed goodies would be a good first step in the right direction.