Posts Tagged ‘IRS and state tax collections’

Like-kind exchange relief for those snared by QIs in bankruptcy or receivership

Monday, March 8th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

The IRS has at long last granted relief for taxpayers who were unable to timely complete a like-kind exchange because their qualified intermediary (QI) entered into bankruptcy or receivership. IRS will not treat taxpayers as being in actual or constructive receipt of exchange proceeds if they cannot complete an exchange because of a default of a QI in bankruptcy or receivership. Affected taxpayers may use a special safe harbor method to report gain or loss.

The IRS received many comments on this issue and has been promising action on it for a long time.  As far back as 2007, when the real estate market started heading south in many areas, the IRS wrote Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to say that IRS was considering whether it was appropriate for it to extend relief where QIs went bankrupt.  In substantially similar letters written to a number of Washington legislators in mid-2009, the IRS again said it was considering relief measures.

Background.  In general, no gain or loss is recognized on the exchange of property held for productive use in a trade or business or for investment if the property is exchanged solely for property of a like kind which is held either for productive use in a trade or business or for investment. (Code Sec. 1031 )  Under Code Sec. 1031(a)(3), for a deferred exchange to be treated as tax-free, a taxpayer must identify the replacement property within 45 days of the transfer of the relinquished property and must acquire the replacement property by the earlier of 180 days after the date on which the taxpayer transfers the property relinquished in the exchange, or the due date (determined with regard to extensions) of the taxpayer’s federal income tax return for the year in which the transfer of the relinquished property occurs.  Absent relief, if the statutory timing requirements are met, a taxpayer would have to treat the relinquished property as having been disposed of in a taxable sale or exchange.

The regulations allow a taxpayer to use a QI to facilitate a like-kind exchange. (Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(g)(4))  When a taxpayer uses a QI, generally he will transfer the relinquished property to the QI, who sells the property to a buyer.  The QI then takes the proceeds of the sale of the relinquished property, buys the replacement property, and transfers the replacement property to the taxpayer. If the taxpayer receives the replacement property within the period in Code Sec. 1031(a)(3) and meets the other Code Sec. 1031 requirements, he is treated as having engaged in a like-kind exchange of property with the QI and he will not recognize gain on the exchange.

Victims of the recession and the troubled real estate markets. In Rev Proc 2010-14, IRS says it is aware of situations in which taxpayers initiated like-kind exchanges by transferring relinquished property to a QI but were unable to complete the exchanges within the statutory time period solely due to the failure of the QI to acquire and transfer replacement property to the taxpayer (a “QI default”). In many of these cases, the QI enters bankruptcy or receivership, thus preventing the taxpayer from obtaining immediate access to the relinquished property’s sale proceeds.

The IRS says it’s generally of the view that in such situations, a taxpayer should not have to recognize gain from the failed exchange until the tax year in which he receives a payment attributable to the relinquished property.

Who is entitled to relief. A taxpayer is entitled to relief under Rev Proc 2010-14 if he:

(1) Transferred relinquished property to a QI in accordance with Reg. §1.1031(k)-1(g)(4).

(2) Properly identified replacement property within the identification period (unless the QI default occurs during that period).

(3) Did not complete the like-kind exchange solely because of a QI default involving a QI that becomes subject to a bankruptcy proceeding or a receivership proceeding under federal or state law.

(4) Did not, without regard to any actual or constructive receipt by the QI, have actual or constructive receipt of the proceeds from the disposition of the relinquished property or any property of the QI before the QI entered bankruptcy or receivership. For purposes of this condition, relief of a liability under the exchange agreement before the QI default, either through the assumption or satisfaction of the liability in connection with the transfer of the relinquished property or through the transfer of the relinquished property subject to the liability, is disregarded.

Relief provisions. Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4, provides that a taxpayer meeting the above conditions recognizes gain on the disposition of the relinquished property only as required under the safe harbor gross profit ratio method, and only as he receives payments attributable to that property.

Under the safe harbor gross profit ratio method, the portion of any payment attributable to the relinquished property that is recognized as gain is found by multiplying the payment by a fraction, having the taxpayer’s gross profit as the numerator, and having the taxpayer’s contract price as the denominator. For this purpose:

  • A payment attributable to the relinquished property means a payment of proceeds, damages, or other amounts attributable to the disposition of the relinquished property (other than selling expenses), whether paid by the QI, the bankruptcy or receivership estate of the QI, the QI’s insurer or bonding company, or any other person. Unless it exceeds adjusted basis, satisfied indebtedness is not a payment attributable to the relinquished property.
  • Gross profit means the selling price of the relinquished property, minus the taxpayer’s adjusted basis in it (increased by any selling expenses not paid by the QI using proceeds from the sale of the relinquished property).
  • The selling price of the relinquished property is generally the amount realized on its sale, without reduction for selling expenses. But if a court order, confirmed bankruptcy plan, or written notice from the trustee or receiver specifies, by the end of the first tax year in which the taxpayer receives a payment attributable to the relinquished property, an amount to be received by the taxpayer in full satisfaction of his claim, the selling price of the relinquished property is the sum of the payments attributable to the relinquished property (including satisfied indebtedness in excess of basis) received or to be received and the amount of any satisfied indebtedness not in excess of the adjusted basis of the relinquished property.
  • The contract price is the selling price of the relinquished property minus the amount of any satisfied indebtedness not in excess of the property’s adjusted basis. Satisfied indebtedness means any mortgage or encumbrance on the relinquished property that was assumed or taken subject to by the buyer or satisfied in connection with the transfer of the relinquished property.

Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4, has detailed rules covering situations involving satisfied indebtedness exceeding adjusted basis, recapture income, and imputed interest.

A Code Sec. 165 loss deduction may be claimed for the amount, if any, by which the adjusted basis of the relinquished property exceeds the sum of (1) the payments attributable to that property (including satisfied indebtedness in excess of basis), plus (2) the amount of any satisfied indebtedness not in excess of basis. Those claiming a loss deduction may also claim a Code Sec. 165 loss deduction for the amount of any gain recognized in accordance with Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4, in a prior tax year.

Illustration: Mr. Able, a calendar year taxpayer owned investment property (Property 1) with a fair market value of $1.5 million and an adjusted basis of $500,000.  He entered into an agreement with QI to facilitate a deferred like-kind exchange. On May 6, Year 1, Able transferred Property 1 to QI and QI transferred the property to a third party in exchange for $1.5 million. Able intended that the QI use the money held by it to acquire Able’s replacement property. On June 1, Year 1, Able identified Property 2 as replacement property. On June 15, Year 1, QI notified Able that it filed for bankruptcy protection and could not acquire replacement property. As a result, Able failed to acquire Property 2 or any other replacement property within the exchange period. As of December Year 1, QI’s bankruptcy proceedings are on-going and Able has received none of the $1.5 million proceeds from QI or any other source.

On July 1, Year 2, QI exits from bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court approves the trustee’s final report, which shows that Able will be paid $1.3 million in full satisfaction of QI’s obligation under the exchange agreement. Able receives the $1.3 million on August 4, Year 2 and does not receive any other payment attributable to the relinquished property.

Under Rev Proc 2010-14, Able is not required to recognize gain in Year 1 because he did not receive any payments attributable to the relinquished property in that year. He recognizes gain in Year 2, as follows:

… His selling price is $1.3 million, i.e., the payments attributable to the relinquished property (the amount specified by the trustee before the end of the first tax year in which he receives a payment attributable to the relinquished property).

… His contract price also is $1.3 million because there is no satisfied or assumed indebtedness.

… His gross profit is $800,000 (the selling price of $1.3 million less his $500,000 adjusted basis).

… His gross profit ratio is 80/130 (gross profit over the contract price).

… Able’s recognized gain in Year 2 is $800,000 (the $1.3 million payment attributable to the relinquished property multiplied by the gross profit ratio (80/130)).

Even though the payment attributable to the relinquished property ($1.3 million) is less than the $1.5 million that the QI received, Able is not entitled to a Code Sec. 165 loss deduction because the payment attributable to the relinquished property exceeds his adjusted basis in the relinquished property ($500,000). (Rev Proc 2010-14, Sec. 4.10, Ex. 1)

Rev Proc 2010-14 carries four other detailed examples illustrating nuances of the new safe-harbor relief.

Effective date of relief. Rev Proc 2020-14 is effective for taxpayers whose like-kind exchanges fail due to a QI default occurring on or after January 1, 2009.  A taxpayer who is within the scope of Rev Proc 2020-14 may, subject to the Code Sec. 6511 limitations on credit or refund, file an original or amended return to report a deferred like-kind exchange that failed due to a QI default in a tax year ending before January 1, 2009, in accordance with Rev Proc 2010-14.

Tax consequences of debt discharge income

Sunday, February 14th, 2010 by Moore McLaughlin

Many financially distressed borrowers may have had some or all of their debts cancelled or forgiven by their lender last year. As tax time approaches, these individuals may not realize that they may have to report the canceled debt as income on their 2009 tax returns. McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC partners Moore McLaughlin, Esq., CPA and Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. are apprising existing and prospective clients of how discharged debts can trigger income unless one of numerous exceptions or exclusions applies.  Note that even if there is not an exception or exclusion in a given case, the taxable amount can be reduced if the amount reported from the lender can be shown to be incorrect.

In these troubled economic times, many financially distressed borrowers may have had some or all of their debt cancelled or forgiven by their lender last year. While such relief was no doubt welcome to people who received it, what they may not have realized is that debt forgiveness may have tax consequences. Specifically, debt forgiven in 2009 may have to be included as income on your 2009 return. However, not all canceled debts trigger taxable income. And, even if there is no exception or exclusion in a particular case, that may not be the last word. The tax bite may be reduced or eliminated if you can show that the amount reported by the lender is incorrect.Cancellation of debt

General rule. The tax laws specifically include income from the discharge of indebtedness in gross income. However, there are several exceptions to this rule. In addition, there are numerous exclusions from gross income for certain types of forgiven debts.

Exceptions. If the cancellation of debt by a private lender, such as a relative or friend, is intended as a gift, there is no income. Likewise, a debt cancelled by a private lender’s Last Will and Testament triggers no income to the borrower.

There is also an exception for certain student loans. For example, doctors, nurses, and teachers agreeing to serve in rural or low income areas in exchange for cancellation of their student loans will not have income from the cancellation if they meet certain conditions.

Also keep in mind that there is no income from cancellation of deductible debt. For example, if a lender cancels home mortgage interest that could have been claimed as an itemized deduction on Schedule A of Form 1040, there is no tax problem to contend with.

Price adjustment. There is no income if an individual purchases property and the seller later reduces the price. The purchaser’s basis (yardstick for measuring gain or loss on a later sale) in the property, however, is reduced by the amount of the purchase price adjustment.

Exclusions. In addition to the above exceptions, there are exclusions from the general rule for reporting canceled debt as income for:

  • discharge of debt through bankruptcy,
  • discharge of debt of an insolvent taxpayer,
  • discharge of qualified farm debt,
  • discharge of qualified real property business debt, and
  • discharge of qualified principal residence debt.

These exclusions are quite complicated and a detailed discussion of them is beyond the scope of this post. However, it is worth pointing out that the qualified principal residence debt exclusion applies where individuals restructure their acquisition debt on a principal residence, lose their principal residence in a foreclosure, or sell a principal residence in a short sale (where the sales proceeds are insufficient to pay off the mortgage and the lender cancels the balance). Also, the exclusions require certain tax attributes to be reduced and must be reported to the IRS on its Form 982.

Repurchased business debt. Income from certain repurchased business debt can be stretched out over several years. Although all of the deferred debt discharge income will eventually be recognized, you benefit from the deferral of tax to later years.

Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt. A taxpayer should receive a Form 1099-C from a federal government agency, financial institution, or credit union that forgives a debt of $600 or more. The amount of the canceled debt is shown in box 2. Any forgiven interest included in the amount of canceled debt in box 2 will also be shown in box 3. As noted above, if the interest would otherwise be deductible, it does not have to be included in income.

An individual who does not agree with the amount shown on Form 1099-C should contact the lender in writing and request it to issue a corrected Form 1099-C showing the proper amount of canceled debt. Even if the lender refuses to issue a corrected report, there still may be recourse if you have adequate documentation to show that the lender incorrectly reported the amount canceled.

If you had a debt forgiven last year, we can determine how it may affect your 2009 taxes, make sure you gain maximum advantage from any exception or exclusion that may apply, and guide you through various choices that may be available to you, depending on the specific circumstances of your situation. We also may be able to help you to resolve any discrepancy concerning the amount reported by the lender.

Contact Moore McLaughlin, Esq, CPA by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or Thomas P. Quinn, Esq. by e-mail at tquinn@mclaughlinquinn.com, or either of them by phone at 401-421-5115.

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))*

Taxman may be your “Friend”

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

According to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, state revenue agents have been looking at MySpace and Facebook postings to catch tax scofflaws.  Click here for the full article.

For example, in Minnesota the tax authorities found a tax evader after he announced on his MySpace page that he was returning to his home MySpacetown to work and mentioned his new employer.  Genius!

Agents in Nebraska caught a DJ after announcing one of his gigs.  Brilliant!

California caught wind of a rigger of sails through an on-line thread to collect a 4-figure sum.  Outstanding!Facebook

Personally, I love these stories.  Can’t get enough of them.  Of course, I also watch all of the “Caught in the Act” and “World’s Dumbest Criminals” episodes I can.

Back in the real world, Tom Quinn and I help people with their IRS, Rhode Island and Massachusetts tax problems on a daily basis.  If you owe the IRS, Rhode Island or Massachusetts taxes, contact us at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at mmclaughlin@mclaughlinquinn.com or tquinn@mclaughlinquinn.com for more information on how we can help you.

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.

Masssachusetts increases audits of small businesses

Tuesday, May 26th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

According to a recent report in the Boston Business Journal, the 87 new auditors and tax collectors hired by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue last year have paid tremendous dividends to the Commonwealth’s coffers.  According to this report by Lisa Van Der Pool, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue invested about $6 million last year and collected about $72 million in additional taxes.  Nice return on investment.  This article also reports that, according to the Department of Revenue, Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed that the DOR take on 14 more collectors.  Click here for the full article.boston_business_journal

As more states struggle with budgetary and other fiscal constraints, expect to see more efforts to audit and collect taxes under the current system.  Our attorneys at McLaughlin & Quinn, LLC have already felt this renewed effort in both Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  The numbers of new cases is at an all-time high.  These state efforts are focused not just on personal and corporate income taxes, but sales and use taxes, payroll taxes, and excise taxes, such as the cigarette tax, fuels taxes and others.

Ms. Van Der Pool’s article correctly points out that everyone should pay their taxes according to the law.  But, as a tax attorney I can attest that there can certainly be differing opinions as to the proper interpretation of the law.  However, merely not paying any taxes, or not filing tax returns, is not the appropriate method to challenge an interpretation of the tax law.

If you have been selected for audit, if you know you owe taxes, or if you have not filed all required tax returns, and if you want to get these matters settled and behind you, you need to seek competant tax advice immediately.

Tax Debt Relief Companies

Monday, April 27th, 2009 by Moore McLaughlin

Not a day goes by when I don’t hear a radio or TV ad for a company that will “help you settle your back taxes for pennies on the dollar.” Not a week goes by where Tom and I don’t get a new client who was taken by one of these companies. These companies profit from instilling fear and by creating unrealistic expectations. Tom Quinn and I continue to hear stories of $5,000 up front fees that result in submitting an unrealistic offer in compromise that is not accepted. Once the offer is rejected, the client is told that additional fees are required for further representation.get-tax-help-relief-image2

Tom’s background in IRS collections and both of our years in private practice representing clients in IRS collections has taught us the realities of negotiating and dealing with the IRS. We understand what is and what is not possible. We go the extra mile to ensure that our clients have appropriate expectations, even if we contradict the radio ads.

I would like to see more attorneys general of the various states go after these companies. The Massachusetts Attorney General and the attorneys general of 17 other states entered into a consent agreement with one of the leading tax relief companies last summer and forced them to pay a substantial amount in restitution to consumers that were misled. Read full article here. The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs won a settlement against another noted tax relief company in 2006, finding that she deceived consumers. Read full article here. Perhaps the Federal Trade Commission or the IRS should take action. It brings me and Tom no pleasure to have to charge additional fees to a client who has already paid substantial fees to one of these companies, and who still owes the taxes, penalties and interest.

Contact your CPA or us if you owe back taxes and we can steer you in the right direction.

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.