Sacramento Tax Blog

De-Friending Uncle Sam

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 21 May 2012 18:29:00 +0000

Last week, Facebook's initial public offering hit the market like tickets to the season's hottest concert. Shares opened at $38, unlocking billions in new wealth for founders and early investors. While shares have actually fallen below that IPO level, investors will probably "like" Facebook for quite some time!

Taxes played a lead role in Facebook's IPO. The company went public largely so founder Mark Zuckerberg could pay $2 billion in taxes to exercise options on 120 million shares. And six insiders, including Zuckerberg, have set up annuity trusts most likely intended to minimize gift and estate taxes on transfers to future heirs. (In Zuckerberg's case, those future heirs haven't even been born — how's that for advance planning!) But one Facebook founder has taken an even more drastic step to avoid tax — he's actually renounced his American citizenship!

Eduardo Saverin was born in Brazil in 1982. His wealthy father moved the family to Miami in 1993 to avoid kidnapping threats, and Saverin became a U.S. citizen in 1998. He met Zuckerberg while the two were students at Harvard and, using his family's wealth, became Facebook's first investor. But Saverin was squeezed out shortly thereafter, reportedly at the urging of more experienced backers. He sued Zuckerberg, and settled out of court for what appears to be something between 2% and 4% of the company — worth as much as $4 billion at last week's market close.

Now, Americans like Saverin who give up their citizenship do pay an "exit tax" on the value of appreciated assets as of the time they leave. That means, essentially, you're taxed as if you sold everything the day before you surrender your U.S. passport. You'll file Form 8854 to calculate and report your tax. If you can't afford to pay on the spot, you can even "finance" it as long as you post adequate security.

In Saverin's case, that means he pays based on the pre-IPO value when he left in September — but he avoids tax on any appreciation after that date. This could spell hundreds of millions in savings. And where has Saverin settled? Singapore, where he has lived since 2009, and where the tax on capital gains is zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. The Wall Street Journal reports that Saverin has become a Kardashian-like figure in his new home: "Mr. Saverin is regularly spotted lounging with models and wealthy friends at local night clubs, racking up tens of thousands of dollars in bar tabs by ordering bottles of Cristal Champagne and Belvedere vodka, according to people present on these occasions. He drives a Bentley, his friends say, wears expensive jackets and lives in one of Singapore's priciest penthouse apartments."

Saverin is hardly the first American to to de-friend Uncle Sam. The IRS publishes a quarterly list of Americans who leave, one that totaled 1,781 in 2011. And, while Saverin denies he left to avoid taxes, outrage has grown over his move. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) have even introduced legislation that would punish future Saverins — their so-called "Ex-Patriot Act" ("Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy") would impose a 30% tax on future expatriates' gains after they leave our shores.

Are you working to create the next Facebook? There are lots of ways to pay less tax tax when you eventually sell, and they don't require you to give up your citizenship! So call us when you're ready for your IPO — and remember, we're here for the rest of your social network, too!

Owen S. Arnoff, Enrolled Agent
Admitted to Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service
http://www.April15th.com
Sacramento Tax Consulting
Sacramento Tax Preparation
Sacramento Tax Representation
IRS Tax Help, Bookkeeping Services, Payroll Services

Thou Shalt Not Sin?

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 14 May 2012 21:05:00 +0000

It's no secret that Washington uses the tax code to do more than just raise revenue. Lawmakers also use it to influence some of our biggest financial decisions, with tax deductions for mortgage interest to encourage homeownership, tax credits for fuel-efficient cars to encourage conservation, and "bonus depreciation" to stimulate business spending. Washington seems to believe those incentives really work. And cynics argue that the real reason we'll never see a true flat tax is because lawmakers are loath to give up the power to regulate that comes with their power to tax.

Government also uses the tax code to sway some of our smaller decisions, too. This is especially true with so-called "sin taxes" — essentially, fees we pay to consume unhealthy products or engage in unhealthy behaviors. As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “sugar, rum and tobacco are commodities which are nowhere necessaries of life, which are become objects of universal consumption, and which are therefore extremely proper subjects of taxation.”

230 years later, sugar, rum, and tobacco are still taxed. (In New York City, a pack of smokes comes with a hefty $6.86 in federal, state, and local taxes — the tobacco is extra!) The 2010 health care reform slapped a 10% tax on tanning beds. Public health advocates have proposed taxes on fatty foods and sugary sodas to fight obesity. And many Americans, discouraged by what they see as a decades-long failure in the War on Drugs, call for legalizing drugs, taxing them to shift profits from private cartels, and using the revenue to fund anti-addiction efforts.

So, how effective are sin taxes at balancing their dual goals of raising revenue and discouraging unhealthy behavior? Well, federal and state tobacco taxes alone raise nearly $30 billion per year. They seem to do that job just fine. But some economists find that sin taxes send the wrong message by legitimizing the behavior they try to discourage. Here's what Harvard Professor Michael J. Sandel says in his new book, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets:

"A study of some child-care centers in Israel shows how this can happen. The centers faced a familiar problem: parents came late to pick up their children. A teacher had to stay with the children until the tardy parents arrived. To solve this problem, the centers imposed a fine for late pickups. What do you suppose happened? Late pickups actually increased."

Clearly, telling parents "don't be late or we'll fine you" sends a very different message than telling them simply "don't be late." And so it goes with sin taxes, too. Telling smokers and drinkers "don't indulge or we'll tax you" offers them implicit forgiveness — that it's actually OK to light up and enjoy two-for-one Happy Hour so long as they pay the fee. (If you're reading these words with a cigarette in one hand and a Red Bull in the other, you can breathe a sigh of relief!) It may sound hypocritical for Uncle Sam to wag his finger at you with one hand while he reaches into your pocket with the other. But sin taxes have been around a lot longer than income taxes, and they aren't going away.

There's really no "planning" we can help you do to avoid sin taxes. (We would just give you the same advice as your mother.) But it may be worth it, next time you pay any tax, to ask yourself "what's the government trying to accomplish with this tax? What's the government trying to get me to do?" Understanding why you pay a tax can make you a better-informed consumer. And that, in turn, helps all your dollars go farther.

Green Apple

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 07 May 2012 19:57:00 +0000

For 20 years now, Apple has blazed a reputation for stylish design and innovative products, creating a near-cult following among fans. Apple's computers appeal to the artists and designers who set so many of today's trends. Their iPod has helped change how the world listens to music. Their iPad has made online content available nearly anywhere. And their iPhone is helping change the way we communicate with friends, family, and colleagues. (Just a few years ago, your mother-in-law didn't have a cell phone. Now she sends text messages and "checks in" on Facebook.)

Apple may be the most successful company on earth. At one point last year, they had more cash on hand ($76.2 billion) than the United States government ($73.8 billion). And Apple is currently the most valuable company on the planet, with a "market cap" (total value of tradeable shares) that topped $590 billion dollars on April 10. (That's right . . . those iTunes you casually download for a buck each have created a company worth over half a trillion dollars.) In fact, Apple's current market cap is more than the gross domestic products of Iraq, North Korea, Vietnam, Puerto Rico, and New Zealand — combined.

But Apple's most recent annual report reveals the company's genius for creating successful marketing strategies also extends to successful tax strategies. How else would you describe a strategy that lets Apple earn billions and pays less than 10% of their taxable income in tax?

How do they do it? Largely by keeping the money they earn outside the United States, outside the United States. Apple owns subsidiaries in tax havens like Ireland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and the British Virgin islands. They helped pioneer the "Double Irish with a Dutch Sandwich" strategy that hundreds of other multinational companies have imitated. Apple even maintains a subsidiary in tax-free Nevada — the blandly-named "Braeburn Capital" — to manage that enormous cash haul without paying tax in its home state of California. For 2011, the company paid a worldwide tax of $3.3 billion on $34.2 billion of profit. But one study concludes that Apple would have paid $2.4 billion more without these rules.

Now Apple has become part of the political debate. At the risk of grossly oversimplifying a pretty complicated discussion, Democrats in Washington scoff that taking an extra $2.4 billion in tax last year would have squelched Apple's creativity. Republicans reply that using the cash to grow the business or distribute more dividends to shareholders will grow the economy faster than if it goes to the IRS. Both President Obama and presumed Republican nominee Mitt Romney have called for eliminating corporate tax loopholes in order to pay for lower rates (28% in President Obama's plan, 25% in Governor Romney's). Either way, Apple is likely to become one of the stories — like Warren Buffett paying a higher tax rate than his secretary — that come to define this year's campaign.

Taxes always play a part in Presidential races. But this time, with the economy still struggling and the Bush tax cuts scheduled to expire in a few short months, taxes will be even more important than usual. Our job, as November approaches, includes helping you understand just what the candidates' proposals mean for your bottom line. So keep up with these emails — and if you're curious how any of the proposals you hear about would affect your plan, call us!

Chimpanzees & Charity

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Fri, 04 May 2012 01:58:00 +0000

Disneynature's newest movie, Chimpanzee, is a documentary masterpiece for all ages. It's a truly original film that stands out in a multiplex of lookalikes, copies, remakes, and sequels. And Chimpanzee's cinematography is amazing — the simple beauty of the jungles and the animals stands in contrast to so many of today's movies all tricked out with 3D gimmicks and computer-generated special effects.

Filmmakers spent four years "embedded" in the lush rainforest of Ivory Coast's Tai National Park to make the movie, which follows the life of "Oscar," a predictably adorable young chimp. Oscar learns how to use rocks to open nuts (apparently harder than it looks) and use sticks to go "fishing" for army ants (apparently a real delicacy to chimpanzee foodies). There's a turf war with a rival community for control over a valuable nut grove. And, this being a Disney movie, Oscar loses his mother to a leopard around the beginning of the third reel. (It's handled sensitively — there's nothing to terrify children or grandchildren in the audience.) Losing his mother poses a real threat to Oscar's life, until, remarkably, he's "adopted" by Freddy, the community's alpha male. The film is narrated by Tim Allen, whom even the youngest viewers will recognize as the voice of "Buzz Lightyear" from Disney/Pixar's mega-successful Toy Story series.

Primatologists have suspected that chimpanzees like Freddy might altruistically adopt orphaned young in their group. But this is the first example of such behavior actually caught on film. (There's no word on whether Freddy "taxed" the rest of the community for the expenses of caring for Oscar, or whether "tax avoidance" is part of their natural behavior!)

Disney has announced that they are donating a portion of Chimpanzee's opening-weekend ticket sales to the Jane Goodall Institute for the "See Chimpanzee, Save Chimpanzee" program to protect habitats. Disney will donate 20 cents for every ticket sold, with a minimum donation of $100,000. (The movie grossed $10.2 million over its opening weekend, the highest opening gross in history for any nature documentary.) So — and here at last we come to the tax question of the day — does that mean that if you were one of the first to see it, you can deduct part of your ticket?

Unfortunately, no, that's not how it works. You got your "money's worth" from the movie itself, although Disneynature can certainly deduct the contribution on its return. It's like buying a ticket to a college football game. The college itself may be a not-for-profit organization — but buying a ticket isn't a "donation" because you get something of value in exchange. (Some colleges let you make donations in exchange for the right to buy season tickets — in those cases, the IRS treats that "right" as being worth 20% of the donation amount and lets you deduct the remaining 80%.)

Deductions for charitable contributions are a mainstay of the tax code. Charitable contributions let you do well for society while you do well for yourself — which of course is something we want to help with, too! We can help you maximize deductions for gifts of used clothing and household accessories. We can help you plan for bigger gifts of cash, cars or boats, art or antiques, appreciated securities, real estate, and even life insurance. And don't forget, we're here for the rest of your "community," too!

Do Skinny Cows Make Lowfat Cheese?

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:13:00 +0000

The California Milk Advisory Board is an agency of the California Department of Food and Agriculture dedicated to promoting California dairy products. You've probably never heard of the Board. But we'll bet you've seen their television spots, with their catchy slogan: "Great cheese comes from happy cows. Happy cows come from California."

Now, The Atlantic magazine reports that landowners on the other side of the country are saving millions in tax by taking advantage of "America's Dumbest Tax Loophole: The Florida Rent-a-Cow Scam." But are those Florida cows as happy as their cousins in California?

Here's how it works. Florida's "greenbelt law" aims to help preserve farmland by taxing it according to its agricultural-use value, rather than its (higher) potential development value. To qualify, you just have to file a four-page application and convince your county tax appraiser that you're using the land for "bona fide" agricultural purposes. You don't even have to make an actual income from your "farming" in order to lower the valuation on your property. Pretty sweet so far, right?

But what if you're not even really a farmer? What if you're a rich developer, with land just sitting idle that you're getting ready to build on, and you want to get in on the party? No problem! Lease your land to a nearby cattle rancher, plop a few cows in what's left of the grass, and start saving big! Some landowners let ranchers graze their cattle for free. But the tax breaks are so rich and creamy that some landowners actually pay the ranchers to graze their cows, justifying the "rent-a-cow" nickname.

At this point, you're probably scoffing this is . . . well, udderly ridiculous. Au contraire, my naive friend, au contraire!

The Miami Herald reported back in 2005 that over two-thirds of the greenbelt law's biggest beneficiaries aren't true farmers. Developer Armando Codina saved $250,273 in 2004 by grazing cattle on land he owned in northwest Miami-Dade County while he built industrial warehouses on it. Then he asked the county to declare his "ranch" to be an environmentally contaminated "brownfield," while he still had cows on the land! (That had to make the cows happy.) Developer Richard Bell saved $140,168 that same year by grazing 16 cows on a 49-acre tract where he planned to build million-dollar McMansions. Even U.S. Senator Bill Nelson got in on the act — he keeps "about six cows" on 55 acres of property near the Indian River and saves $43,000 per year. The Herald found "skinny" and "underfed" cows eating garbage and grazing on bare, rocky land throughout the state.

Developers confess that this may not have been exactly what the Florida Legislature intended when they passed the greenbelt law back in 1959. But they argue that vacant land shouldn't be taxed at full value if it's just aging till ripeness. And they point out that once the land is developed, new homes and offices generate plenty of tax revenue.

We have no clue if the Florida cows are as happy as the California cows. Nor can we tell you if their cheese is any good. But we can tell you that you don't have to go to such ridiculous lengths to save big on your income taxes. The tax code is full of legitmate deductions, credits, and opportunities that serve legitimate public goals. And it's our job to help put all those opportunities to work for you.

A Dubious Privilege

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:41:00 +0000

The "Occupy Wall Street" movement argues that we live in a divided nation. First there's a gilded "1%" enjoying lives of ease and privilege. Then there's a downtrodden "99%" struggling just to stay in place. But here's a take on "the 1%" that you won't hear at your local tent city . . .

The IRS is struggling just like the rest of us to carry out its mission with limited resources. Back in 2003, they audited just one out of every 203 returns. By 2010, that number was up to one out of 90. To stretch that audit budget even further, they're auditing more and more taxpayers by mail. But one study shows that 10% of IRS mail never gets where it's supposed to go, and 27% of those who do get their mail don't even realize they're actually being audited! Naturally, that leads to more and more of the paperwork screwups that every taxpayer fears.

Enter Nina Olson. She's the IRS's first and only Taxpayer Advocate, a position created by the 1998 "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" act. She supervises the Taxpayer Advocate Service, a nationwide group of 2,000 caseworkers who specialize in cutting through red tape and greasing the wheels of the great gummy IRS machine. If the IRS sends your mail to the wrong address, slaps you with a lien after you've already paid your bill, or just makes a mistake they can't seem to fix, Olson's office is the one we'll call.

Last month, Olson delivered a presentation to the Federal Bar Association on how "the 99%" experience the tax system. And the picture she painted makes a tent in lower Manhattan Park look like a room at the Ritz. One in three taxpayers who call the Service don't get an answer. Only half of those who write hear back within six weeks. The IRS is relying on computers instead of people to audit all but the highest-income taxpayers. And perhaps most curious of all, she says, "we're getting to a situation where the only people who get face-to-face audits are the 1%"!

Now, correct us if we're wrong, but do you really consider face time with an IRS auditor a "privilege"? We all know that at least some level of government is necessary. But there are just some parts you don't want to see up close and in person. Like the "Level 4" Biolab at the Atlanta Centers for Disease Control, for example, where we store the Ebola virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, and other superbugs we can't risk having out on the loose. Or the "Supermax" penitentiary in Florence, Colorado, where we "store" the most dangerous felons we can't risk having out on the loose. Or the inside of any IRS Service Center!

Does Olson's "1%" comment conjure up images of plush IRS offices, with thick oriental carpets and rich leather upholstery, staffed by discreet, white-gloved concierges sitting at granite-topped desks? We can assure you that when it comes to getting audited, even the 1% have to settle for the same government-issue linoleum floors, metal chairs, and battleship gray desks as everyone else. (And really, in the unlikely event you are audited, we probably won't let you go with us anyway! Trust us — it's for your own protection.)

We talk in these emails about how proactive planning cuts your tax bill. But paying less tax isn't the only perk of a good tax plan. Did you know that smart tax planning can also cut your audit risk? In fact, some strategies — like choosing certain business entities — can cut that risk by as much as 90%. So call us if you think face time with an auditor is a "privilege" you can do without!

Mastering Tax Breaks

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:11:00 +0000

This weekend's Masters golf tournament featured the usual perfect weather, gorgeous scenery, and competitive play that fans have loved for so long. Tiger Woods came into the tournament as the betting favorite based on his win at last month's Arnold Palmer Invitational — his first tour victory in nearly three years. But Tiger's performance disappointed his fans yet again — in fact, he even hit a spectator on Saturday. And in the end, Bubba Watson became only the third leftie in history to don the coveted green jacket.

It turns out Tiger isn't the only one having trouble on the course. Our good friends at the IRS have also "sliced into the rough" over the question deducting conservation easements for golf courses. A "conservation easement" is a gift of a partial interest in real estate you make to a publicly-supported charity or government. If you own a historic townhouse, for example, you might donate the right to make changes to the facade, to ensure it keeps its historic character. If you own a farm at the edge of the city, you might donate development rights, to ensure it remains green space. You’ll need an appraisal to support the value of your gift, as the IRS is cracking down on inflated conservation easement deductions. If your gift exceeds 50% of that year’s adjusted gross income, you can carry forward the excess for up to 15 years (rather than the usual five year limit for all other charitable gifts).

The easement in question involves Kiva Dunes — a Jerry Pate-designed golf course nestled on Alabama's Fort Morgan Peninsula, which is tucked neatly between Mobile Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The course is surrounded by 163 upscale homes, including 30 right on the beach. It's no Augusta National, of course, although Golf Digest has ranked it the best course in Alabama. Back in 2002, the partnership that owns Kiva Dunes placed a conservation easement on the course, limiting its use to a golf course, park, or farm. They appraised the easement at $30.6 million, donated it to the North American Land Trust, and happily deducted that amount on their partnership return. (Not bad, considering the owners paid just $1.05 million for the property encompassing both the course and the homesites back in 1992!)

Not surprisingly, the IRS ruled the deduction out of bounds — valuing the easement at just $10.0 million — and the case wound up in Tax Court. The Court started by noting that the partnership's appraiser lives and works in the immediate vicinity of the course and has decades of experience evaluating local properties, while the IRS's appraiser lives 250 miles away in Birmingham and has only visited the vicinity of the course twice. Then they estimated how much the owners could realize if they subdivided the property for the same sort of instant mansions already surrounding the course ($31.9 million). Next, they calculated the current value of the golf course (just shy of $3.0 million). Finally, they subtracted the current value from the potential value to settle on a $28.7 million value for the easement — really, just a chip shot away from the partnership's or iginal appraisal.

The law allowing deductions for conservation easements expired at the end of 2011. That's not necessarily the end of the story, though — lots of popular tax breaks expire, then come back from the dead. But this one may be more dead than usual. That's because President Obama's 2013 budget proposes to eliminate deductions for golf course conservation easements entirely, arguing that they do more to benefit the people living in the McMansions surrounding the courses than the general public. Thus, Kiva Dunes's owners may be the last to benefit from this hole-in-one of a deduction.

Minimizing your taxes may look hard, but it's a lot easier than driving straight down the fairway. Proactive planning is the key to staying out of the sand and water. Remember, we're here for you — and the rest of your foursome, too!

Mad at Taxes!

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:38:00 +0000

Fans of AMC's Mad Men rejoiced last week when Don Draper and his colleagues at Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce returned after a 17-month absence. The year is 1966, and change is in the air. Protestors oppose the war in Vietnam, and riots break out in Los Angeles, Cleveland, and Atlanta. The "kids" are listening to Dusty Springfield and the Rolling Stones. And the "grownups" are struggling to make sense of it all.

Mad Men creator Matthew Weiner is famed for his obsessive attention to period detail. (One episode featured junior executive Pete Campbell displaying a spectacularly ugly "chip and dip" platter he received as a wedding present — the very same chip and dip that Weiner's own parents received for their wedding back in 1959.) So, fashion mavens predictably ooh'ed and ahh'ed over the period costumes, which have inspired today's Banana Republic to introduce an entire Mad Men collection. Interior design aficianados ooh'ed and ahh'ed over Don and his new bride Megan's stylish Upper East Side penthouse, with its white carpeting, sunken living room, and broad terrace. But tax professionals cheered loudest of all when partner Roger Sterling bribed media buyer Harry Crane $1,100 to give up his office for rising star Campbell. "That's more than you make in a month," Sterling whee dled, "after tax!"

And really, who cares about Don's suits, Megan's dresses, or Roger's cocktails, when we can spy on their money and their taxes?

Prices from 1966 seem comically quaint today. A gallon of gas cost just 32 cents. A dozen eggs cost 60 cents. Postage stamps cost a nickel. But there was nothing comical or quaint about taxes. Rates in 1966 started at 14% on income over $1,000 (roughly $7,000 in today's economy), and rose to 70% on income over $200,000. 70% is a lot compared to today's 35% maximum — but 70% was actually a big step down from the 91% top rate that Don and his colleagues faced just three years earlier in 1963. One small consolation — Don's Form 1040 was quite a bit simpler. However, the "Expense Account Information" section at the bottom of page two includes an intimidating box to check — and separate instructions to follow — "if you had an expense account or charged expenses to your employer."

And what about those three-martini lunches that play such a central role in lubricating Mad Men's ensemble? Well, for starters, they sure cost less back then. In one scene from Season One, Don flips a waitress at a beatnik bar $5 to cover three martinis, plus tip. Today, those same martinis cost $14 each at The Roosevelt Hotel, where Don stays after separating from first wife Betty. As for tax breaks, under today's rules, meals and entertainment are 50% deductible. That means, if you're in the top 35% bracket, a dollar's worth of martini saves 17.5 cents in tax. But back in 1966 — when doctors appeared in cigarette commercials and seatbelts were still optional in most cars — meals and entertainment were 100% deductible. That means that same dollar's worth of martini saved up to 70 cents in tax. No wonder the partners spent more time getting soused than they did talking business!

If we had been practicing back in 1966, we would have looked just as good wearing the silhouettes of 1960s style. But Don Draper would have appreciated us more for the way we cut his taxes. There's no need to get mad at the IRS if you have a proactive plan. And there's no pesky two-drink minimum, either!

England's Tax-Subsidized Style

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 19:25:00 +0000

England's creative class is known throughout the world for the richness and variety of its work. Some is good (think Savile Row tailoring and the architecture of Sir Christopher Wren). Some is not (Princess Eugenie's royal wedding hat). And some is just sublime (the 1961 Jaguar E-type). But there's one art form the English are better at than anyone else, and that's highbrow television.

It all started with Upstairs Downstairs. Next came 1981's lavish Brideshead Revisited. And now there's yet another snooty television "programme" invading American hearts and minds —Downton Abbey, a period drama centered on the aristocratic Crawley family and their servants, during the reign of King George V.

Yes, it's a soap opera. But oh, what a soap opera it is. You have your standard-issue improbable plot complications and ill-advised romances, naturally. But it's set against a backdrop of class, manners, and humanity that seem long lost a century later. And where else will you find a soap with Oscar- and Tony-winning actors, much less a pheasant hunt? Add in Edwardian sensibilities, amusing antique technology, and impossibly dry British wit, and you have an irresistably compelling package.

Programs like Downton Abbey showcase British culture to the world and boost the nation's economy, too. So Her Majesty's Treasury began offering film tax credits for movies roughly 10 years ago. For 2010, they gave about £100 million in credits to support more than 200 productions — including, of course, both Harry Potter sequels. But now, as part of their 2013 budget, officials are extending the incentives to high-end television, too. To qualify, dramas must cost more than £1 million (roughly $1.58 million), and must pass a "cultural test."

We have tax credits for movies and television here in the United States, of course. There's nothing at the federal level, but state and local governments eagerly compete for filmmakers' dollars with a vast variety of tax incentives. While Hollywood is the obvious center of the film universe, you might be surprised to learn that the next most attractive location for film production, based in part on generous tax incentives, is Louisiana. In fact, Louisiana was the first state to adopt tax incentives for filmmakers, and sparked a trend across the country. Producers get a 30% transferable tax credit on total in-state expenditures, plus a 5% labor-tax credit on payroll of employed residents.

Here in the US, you wouldn't think we'd worry too much about the quality of the productions we encourage. That, after all, is part of our uniquely American charm. But at least one state official has imposed his own informal "cultural test" in an apparent attempt to class up the joint. Last year, the New Jersey legislature approved $420,000 in credits for the producers responsible for MTV's raucous Jersey Shore — then watched in dismay as Governor Chris Christie vetoed the bill, declaring "as chief executive 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." His Lordship the Earl of Grantham would heartily approve.

If you run your own business — or even if you're just thinking about starting a business — you may not qualify for film credits. But you will qualify for more tax breaks than you realize. So make sure you take some time to sit down with us to plan how best to take advantage of those breaks. And let your friends, family, and colleagues know we're here to help them, too!

Tax Business, Russian Style

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 21:53:00 +0000

Working in the tax business is usually a pretty safe gig. You really just need an office, a computer with an internet connection, and a fast laser printer for all those piles of paper. There's not much heavy lifting — and even less intrigue or danger. But sometimes the tax business is a different story. Just ask Pavel Petrovich Ivlev, who works (now) in suburban New Jersey.

Pavel was born in 1970 just outside Moscow. He earned a law degree from Moscow State University in 1993, studied more in Amsterdam and London, then joined an international law firm. At that point, he appeared set to become another one of a new breed of Russian lawyers, helping newly-privatized companies negotiate the awkward transition to "real" capitalism.

Pavel's clients included Yukos Oil, and its charismatic chairman, Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Khodorkovsky had started out collecting dues for the Communist Youth League. But as the Soviet Union collapsed, he rejected his old Leninist ideology. Taking advantage of glasnost and his party connections, he became an entrepreneur, published his own capitalist manifesto called The Man with the Ruble, and traded his way up to controlling 20% of Russia's lucrative oil production. For one brief shining moment, Khodorkovsky's $16 billion fortune made him the richest man in Russia and the 16th-richest man on earth.

In 1999, Vladimir Putin succeeded to Russia's Presidency. Putin had started his career in the KGB — working counterintelligence, no less — and he was no stranger to blunt force. (Google "Putin+thug" and you get 2,190,000 hits. 'Nuff said.) Putin quickly moved to tighten his grip on power, clamping down on elected officials and billionaire oligarchs alike. Khodorkovsky naturally pushed back, and at one point in 2003, embarrassed Putin in a nationally televised meeting of business leaders. Unfortunately, such resistance amounted to bringing the proverbial knife to a gunfight.

Eight months later, Putin had Khodorkovsky arrested, and slapped everyone else associated with Yukos with tax and fraud charges. And that's where our tax attorney friend Pavel comes back into the picture. Here's how he describes his own interrogation by government investigators. Clearly, they felt no need to screw around with the usual "good cop-bad cop" shtick — or maybe the good cop was just off grabbing a ponchiki (Russian doughnut):

"On November 16, the lead detective in the case said to me 'Now I am going to interrogate you.'
I said, 'You can't do that, it's against the law.'
'I guess we are going to have to break the law then. Tell me all.'
'What do you want me to say?'
'You are the lawyer — you know the penal code. Whatever you say, we'll use.'
'You want me to describe how we took sacks of cash out of Yukos and delivered them to Khodorkovsky personally?'
'Yes.'
'But nothing like that ever happened.'
That's when he threatened to arrest me."

Pavel's momma didn't raise any dummies. He caught the next plane out of Moscow and didn't even call his wife till he landed. But he remains under indictment in his homeland for stealing $2.4 billion, laundering $810 million, and evading tax on the gain. At least he's better off than his former client — Khodorkovsky has spent the last seven years in a series of former Soviet prisons.

Look, there's nothing fun about the IRS. And we've all met someone who went through an "audit from hell." But few people actually flee abroad to shake off the tax man! So while we gripe about how much we pay, we can at least appreciate the IRS playing on a level field. Let Pavel's story help you feel fortunate that we won't be chased out of this country for paying less tax!

March Madness and the IRS

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:51:00 +0000

The NCAA's college basketball tournament — "March Madness" — has become an unofficial national holiday. Fan-in-Chief Barack Obama kicked off this year's action by flying to Dayton (with British Prime Minister David Cameron!) for this year's "First Four" tipoff games. And even people who don't like basketball enjoy watching the tournament. This year's top seeds — Kentucky, Syracuse, UNC, and Michigan State — will probably dominate coverage. But every year features at least one Cinderella team, waltzing up through the brackets with little more than heart. Who will it be this year? Creighton? Virginia Commonwealth? Or maybe #6 seed Cincinnati?

We all know college hoopsters don't actually get "paid" (wink, wink). So the players don't run up the score for the IRS — at least, not until they hit the NBA, where the average salary tops $5.15 million. (That suggests an average tax bill of a million and a half!)

But there's one area where the IRS cashes in, and that's the gambling. Vegas sports books report taking in $100 million during the tournament. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Recent figures show that more Americans participate in March Madness office pools than actually work in offices. Americans bet about $3 billion on pools sponsored by offices, bars, and clubs. And at least part of those winnings wind up in the IRS net.

Gambling winnings are taxable just like any other income. (The IRS doesn't care how you make your money — they just want their "vig.") Gambling losses are deductible as an itemized deduction not subject to the usual 2% floor. But — and this is a pretty important but — gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling winnings. Win $1,000, lose $500, and you owe tax on the remaining $500. Win $500, lose $1,000, and your excess loss is worth about as much as a last-second brick when you're down three points.

So, winners pay tax on their gains (wink, wink), losers cry in their beer over their losses, and March Madness is a bucket hit for the IRS, right? Well, maybe not so fast . . . .

Economists estimate that employees will spend 8.4 million workday hours watching the games. And those office pools, water-cooler conversations, and occasional hangovers will gobble countless million more hours. One research firm estimates the tournament costs the overall economy a whopping $1.8 billion in lost productivity (based on an $18 average hourly wage and 20 minutes lost per employee, per day). And much of that loss drops directly to the IRS's bottom line. How many killer marketing campaigns are delayed because managers are busy checking each other's brackets? How many millions of taxable commissions are lost as glad-handing salesmen sit around televisions instead of selling their stuff?

There's not a lot of planning we can do for March Madness windfalls, simply because we can't actually plan on winning. But what we can plan on is playing hard to help you keep what you win. So call us with your tax-planning questions. And may the best team win! (wink, wink)

Il-eagle Assets?

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 21:55:00 +0000

Our estate tax system is quite different from our income tax system. The income tax, as its name implies, focuses on how much money individuals, trusts, and business entities make. The estate tax system, in contrast, focuses on how much assets are worth. Most assets aren't hard to value. Stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and similar assets are valued at their publicly-traded fair market value (FMV) as of the date of death (or the executor can choose an "alternate valuation date" nine months later). But some assets are a little harder. Real estate, for example, is also valued at its FMV — but who's to say what a unique or expensive property is really "worth," especially in today's volatile market? Closely-held businesses can be even harder to appraise. And high-end collectibles, like the kind of art and antiques that usually sell at auction, can be hardest of all.

These issues make estate-tax enforcement a different challenge from income-tax enforcement. For fiscal year 2010, the IRS received 42,366 estate tax returns, and audited 4,288, or 10.1%. But just as income tax audits go up as your income rises, estate-tax audits go up as your assets go up. For that same year, the IRS received 3,013 estate tax returns reporting assets of $10 million or more — and audited 928 of them, or 30.8%!

Occasionally, the IRS finds assets that are especially tricky to value. For instance, how do you value an asset that would be illegal to sell? That was the challenge the IRS faced with the estate of art dealer Ileana Sonnabend. Sonnenbend died at age 92 after amassing one of the country's most important collections of contemporary art, including works by Jeff Koons, Roy Lichtenstein, Andy Warhol, and Cy Twombly. Her heirs valued her estate at $875 million, and sold several works to pay taxes of $331 million to Uncle Sam and $140 million to New York state.

But Sonnabend's collection also included a 1959 work called "Canyon" by Robert Rauschenberg, best-known for his "combine-paintings" incorporating nontraditional materials and objects. And there's a problem with that piece — it includes a stuffed bald eagle. Bald eagles aren't just a symbol of America, they're an endangered species. Selling any part of an eagle, even a single feather, is, well, il-eagle — punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and a year in prison. (Yes, they will make a federal case out of it.) In fact, back in 1981, the Department of Fish and Wildlife notified Sonnabend that ownership of the piece was restricted by federal law. Sonnabend got permission to retain the piece and lend it to museums, but understood that she could never sell it or export it for sale.

Sonnabend's executors obviously took that constraint into consideration, and valued the piece for estate tax purposes at zero. The IRS, not surprisingly, disagreed. They valued "Canyon" at $65 million — assessed $29 million in tax — and threw in an $11.7 "gross valuation misstatement" penalty for good measure! (The technical term for that is "holy smokes"!) The executors have filed suit, of course, but the IRS has a history of valuing illicit assets, like native American artifacts and stolen art and antiquities, at their "black market" value.

Smart planning could have avoided this whole mess. Sonnabend could have donated "Canyon" to a U.S. museum before her death. That would have avoided the absurd result of owing tax on an asset, but facing jail time for selling it to pay the tax! The good news in all this is that, at least from now through the end of the year, there's no tax due unless your taxable estate tops $10 million. The bad news is that if you do leave enough to owe tax, you can almostcount on being audited. So if your house is stuffed with contraband, the time to get rid of it is now! Other tax planning questions? Call us!

And the Oscar Goes to . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:11:00 +0000

Sunday night, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences put "Oscar" on a diet, cutting out live performances for "Best Original Song" nominees and trimming the traditionally bloated and self-indulgent awards program to just over three hours. Movies about movies were the big winners. "Hugo," Martin Scorsese's homage to French director Georges Melies, took five awards early in the evening. And "The Actor," a black-and-white silent film celebrating Hollywood history, took home five more, including the coveted "Best Picture."

Host Billy Crystal managed to sneak in a joke about about taxes during the broadcast — he remarked that the "Harry Potter" movies had grossed over seven billion dollars in worldwide receipts but paid just 14% in taxes! (Apparently that "taxium minimoso" spell is a real winner! It also helps if you can keep your bank records in disappearing ink.) But while the tax man rarely gets a star turn on stage, he still manages to clean up at awards time.

For starters, you know how nominees walk away with fat "swag bags" filled with goodies and bling? Those bags are taxable, of course. This year's bag is valued at $62,023.26 (down a bit from last year's $75,000). It includes little "party favors" like a $135 bottle of Purell hand sanitizer (bagged in a gold and crystal studded carrying case), $120 worth of "earthpawz" environmentally-friendly pet accessories (Dirty Dog Floor Cleaner & Mud Remover, Doggie Slobber Window & Glass Cleaner, Doggie Grime All Purpose Cleaner, Smelly Dog Odor Eliminator and Eco-Tabs Stain & Odor Remover), and a $178.99 "thermarobe" wireless heated robe.

The swag bag also includes bigger-ticket gifts like a $15,580 four-night safari — on elephant back, no less — in Botswana, a $15,000 cocktail party for up to 100 guests sponsored by liqueur maker DiSaronno, and a $3,350 stay in an oceanview suite in Punta de Mita on the Mexican Riviera. Some nominees actually refuse the bags to avoid the tax hit, while others — including A-lister George Clooney — have donated the contents to be auctioned for charity.

Oscar nominations and Oscar victories give films a famed "Oscar bounce" — and that means taxable income for everyone involved. "Best Picture" nominees earn an average of $17.7 million after their nomination and another $4 million after the show. Best Picture winners earn $27.5 million after their nomination and $15.4 million after the show. (In fact, some Hollywood insiders watch box-office receipts between the nomination and the show, to divine who will take home the statuette.) Those millions ripple throughout the film economy: theatres pay tax on ticket sales and concessions; studios pay tax on their own receipts; writers, directors, actors and others with "points" pay tax on back-end profits; and even the kids who serve popcorn and soda pay tax on their meager paychecks.

Oscar nods also boost performers' future paychecks. That means serious tax planning if the lucky winners don't want 35% of the difference winding up in Uncle Sam's pocket. Of course, youdon't have to be a movie star to cut your taxes. It just means you need a plan of your own — one that takes advantage of every legal deduction, credit, loophole, and strategy. We're here to help you star in that plan!

"Like" This

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:18:00 +0000

America's economy continues to sputter. But stocks are picking up steam and flirting with four-year highs. We're even seeing new "dot-coms" hitting the market. Last May, the social networking site LinkedIn went public at $45 per share, then leaped to $94.25 in its first day of trading. Internet coupon vendor Groupon opened in November at $20 per share, then jumped 31% on its first day of trading. And earlier this month, Facebook filed registration papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission for what may be the hottest IPO since Google.

Companies typically go public to raise money to expand. But Facebook doesn't really need cash from an IPO. The company made nearly $4 billion in advertising revenue in 2011. So why go public?

Well, companies also go public to let founders and early investors cash out. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's 27-year-old founder, is already a "paper" billionaire, ranked #14 on the Forbes 400 list of richest Americans. (Not many entreprenuers find themselves richer than Scrooge McDuck while still at an age that they watch Scrooge McDuck.) But Facebook's IPO will give Zuckerberg and fellow early investors liquidity, converting paper wealth into cash for the houses, charitable gifts, and other spending that new dot-com millionaires historically indulge in.

The IPO will also stick Zuckerberg with a historically large tax bill. (You knew that was coming, right?) In fact, one of the big reasons the company is going public in the first place is give Zuckerberg a way to pay taxes when he exercises options to buy even more stock.

Here's how it works. For tax purposes, the value of most stock options is treated as compensation and fixed the day you exercise them — whether you actually sell them or not. Let's say you pay $5 to exercise a share of your employer's stock, on a day when that stock is worth $25. Your company gets a deduction for that $20 per share, even though there's no cash outlay. That's great for the company. But at the same time, you'll owe immediate tax on $20 of income, even if you hold the stock in hope of future appreciation. (If the stock tanks before you actually sell, you still owe tax on that gain.) That may not be so great for you!

Zuckerberg currently owns 414 million shares of Facebook. He also has options to buy another 120 million shares for — get this — just six cents each. Zuckerberg has announced plans to exercise those options and sell enough shares to cover his taxes. We don't know yet what Facebook shares will trade for. However, private-market trades have valued shares at $40 each. If Zuckerberg exercises all 120 million options when shares are valued at that price, his taxable gain will be nearly $5 billion. He'll owe 35% to the IRS, plus 10.3% to the state of California, for a total tax bill of over $2 billion. That's right, billion with a "b." Can you imagine signing a return with a billion-dollar tax bill? How about signing a check for that much — payable to the IRS!

The important thing to realize here is that Zuckerberg's tax bill came as no surprise. It's actually the result of careful planning. Remember, Zuckerberg's pain is Facebook's gain. The strategy will probably give Facebook enough deductions to wipe out the entire tax on its 2011 profit, plus refunds from 2009 and 2010, plus even more to carry forward.

Think about that the next time you click the "Like" button on your computer. And remember, we're here to bring the same sort of smart tax planning to your business.

Gimme Shelter

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:17:00 +0000

Sunday night's Grammy Awards ceremony illuminated two sides of today's music industry. On stage, British soul singer Adele cleaned up big time, winning Album of the Year, Record of the Year, and Song of the Year. On the darker side, the night was filled with tributes to fallen angel Whitney Houston, who died Saturday after years of backstage struggles with drugs and alcohol.

When you think of your favorite musician, you probably don't think about a third side — taxes. But you might be surprised to learn just how much influence tax laws have over the music we listen to every day.

Rock-and-roll fans know "Gimme Shelter" as one of the Rolling Stones' all-time classics — the opening cut on their 1969 album Let it Bleed, and a dark, brooding meditation on the war and violence that seemed to characterize that era. Surprisingly, it turns out that "Gimme Shelter" describes the band's philosophy on taxes, too.

The Stones' troubles with the tax man go back nearly as far as their troubles with the police. Back in 1968, with bandmates Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, and Brian Jones facing drug charges, reports surfaced that they had also failed to observe taxlaws. As Jagger reported at the time, "So after working for eight years I discovered at the end that nobody had ever paid my taxes and I owed a fortune. So then you have to leave the country. So I said &@#& it, and left the country." The "World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band" literally skipped town, with guitarist Richards renting the Villa Nellcote in Villefranche-sur-Mer on the French Cote D'Azur, where they wound up recording their critically-acclaimed double album, Exile on Main Street.

That lesson scarred them, and the Stones vowed not to repeat that mistake. Jagger put his London School of Economics studies to work, and hooked up with some top-notch financial advisors. They eventually set up a series of Dutch corporations and trusts which helped the band pay just 1.6% in tax over the last 20 years. More recently, they established a pair of private Dutch foundations to avoid estate taxes at their deaths.

"The whole business thing is predicated a lot on the tax laws," guitarist Keith Richards told Fortune Magazine (with a Marlboro in one hand and a vodka and juice in the other). "It's why we rehearse in Canada and not in the U.S. A lot of our astute moves have been basically keeping up with tax laws, where to go, where not to put it. Whether to sit on it or not. We left England because we'd be paying 98 cents on the dollar. We left, and they lost out. No taxes at all." It's worth mentioning at this point that Richards makes his primary residence in unglamorous but relatively low-taxed Weston, Connecticut.

The Rolling Stones were just the first of many artists to flee the United Kingdom to avoid taxes. Folk singer Cat Stevens left around the same time, moving first to Brazil, where his album Foreigner refers to his move. In 1978, rockers Pink Floyd spent three years outside the country to avoid tax. Glam-rocker David Bowie moved to Switzerland in 1976 (before becoming the first musician to securitize future royalties in the form of a bond offering). British singers Rod Stewart and Tom Jones both moved to Los Angeles to avoid British Prime Minister Harold Wilson's 83% top tax rate. Even fictional musicians have taken extraordinary steps to avoid tax — in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, British author Douglas Adams created the galactically-famous rocker Hotblack Desiato, who was "spending a year dead for tax purposes."

Our job, of course, is to help you pay the minimum legal tax. And we think proactive planning beats fleeing the country. So call us when you're ready to pay less. We're here for you, and your bandmates too!

The Super Bowl and Tax Planning

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:35:00 +0000

A decade or more ago, the Super Bowl had become a bit of a joke. Fans looked forward to watching the commercials, sure. But the actual game itself had become a dreary series of lopsided blowouts. Super Bowl XXIV was perhaps the worst offender, with the San Francisco 49ers pounding the Denver Broncos, 55-10, in a game that wasn't nearly as close as that score suggested!

More recently, the game has been more competitive and more entertaining. The NFC champion New York Giants reached this year's "big dance" by defeating the 49ers, 20-17, in a game that came down to the final play — in a Cinderella playoff run that followed a middling regular season. The AFC champion New England Patriots made it by beating the Baltimore Ravens, 23-20, in a game that came down to the final play. That set up Sunday's contest, when the Giants defeated the Patriots, 21-17, in yet another game that came down to the final play.

Sunday's game proved the truth of the old cliche that "offense sells tickets, but defense wins games." Patriots coach Bill Belichick gambled by actually letting Giants running back Ahmad Bradshaw score in the final minute in hopes of keeping precious time on the clock. That gamble succeeded in giving quarterback Tom Brady 57 seconds to engineer a last-minute drive — but ultimately failed when Brady's desperate final heave to tight end Rob Gronkowski fell harmlessly to the ground.

That same cliche about defense winning games applies to your finances as well — especially when it comes to tax planning. If you want to put real money in your pocket, you've got two choices:

Financial offense means making more money. (As Charlie Sheen would say, "duh.") But that's not always easy, especially in a tough economy like today's. You can invest all sorts of time efforts into growing your business or your income, only to see them sail wide right like a missed field goal.

Financial defense means spending less money. That's often easier than making more. And when it comes to spending less, it makes sense to focus on the big expenses. For most affluent Americans, that means taxes, rushing you like the Giants' backfield. Maybe you can save 15% or more on car insurance by switching to GEICO. But in the long run, how much can that really do for you?

Financial defense is important enough that some financial moves which look like offense are actually defense in disguise. Wall Street is buzzing about Facebook's upcoming initial public offering, wondering if the company can really be worth $100 billion. But the company is raising "only" $10 billion in cash. And Facebook doesn't need the money. They're "engineering a liquidity event," in large part so founder Mark Zuckerberg can pay his own taxes! (We'll talk more about this as we get closer to the actual offering.)

It's easy to think of us as just "tax people" and focus on the forms we file for that April 15 deadline (April 17 this year, for you procrastinators). But focusing on just compliance misses thevalue you get from proactive tax planning, and misses the total value we offer as your financial "defensive coordinator." So call us when you're ready to "call an audible" and play real financial defense. We promise not to let the IRS just walk the ball across the goal line!

Looks like the tax code is getting a lot simpler ... NOT!

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:23:00 +0000

Courtesy of the S-Corporation Association of America (their opinions expressed):

“Buffett Rule” Bill Introduced

Legislation to enact the so-called “Buffett Rule” has been introduced in the United States Senate. The bill, entitled the “The Paying a Fair Share Act” was introduced by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and others. According to the authors:

Whitehouse’s legislation would apply only to taxpayers with income over $1 million – including capital gains and dividends. Taxpayers earning over $2 million would be subject to a 30% minimum federal tax rate. The tax would be phased in for incomes between $1 million and $2 million, with those taxpayers paying a portion of the extra tax required to get them to a 30% effective tax rate. The bill also includes language to preserve the incentive for charitable giving.

The Wall Street Journal has a few more details:

The legislation introduced Wednesday by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) would ensure that anyone earning more than $2 million in income each year, including from capital gains, would pay a minimum 30% federal tax rate, Mr. Whitehouse said on the Senate floor Wednesday morning. Wealthy taxpayers who face a tax rate above 30% would still pay the higher rate.
The “fair share tax” would be gradually phased in for those earning between $1 million and $2 million in annual income. They would pay a portion of the extra tax needed to get them to the 30% rate, the lawmaker said.
“This way, we make sure that no taxpayer is ever in a situation where earning an additional dollar of income will increase his or her taxes by more than that dollar,” Mr. Whitehouse said in his remarks prepared for the Senate floor. The new tax would not affect anyone making less than $1 million.

We have several complaints with this effort. First, as we’ve pointed out before, the Warren Buffett’s of the world don’t pay a lower effective tax than their secretaries. Congressional Budget Office estimates make clear that the existing tax code is strongly progressive, with wealthy taxpayers paying significantly higher levels of tax – both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their overall income – than middle-class and low-income Americans.

Second, if enacted, this new legislation would impose a third tax code (and calculation) on individual taxpayers. We already have two codes, the regular income tax and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Now we would have three:

Regular Income Tax
Alternative Minimum Tax
Fair Share Tax

Third, the author takes pains to point out that no taxpayer will face marginal rates of more than 100 percent on additional earnings, but exactly how high would the effective marginal rates reach as a taxpayer’s income rises above $1 million? The dead weight economic loss imposed by a tax increases by the square of the rate hike, so the potential cost to the economy is significant.

Nor is it clear the Fair Share tax would successfully target the rich. The AMT was created four decades ago to ensure that the same taxpayers targeted by the Fair Share tax pay at least a “minimum” amount of tax. Over the years, however, the tax has morphed into a burden on middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers. Actual millionaires are less likely to pay the AMT than a middle-class family with three children living in a high tax state. What’s the guarantee that the Fair Share bill will not make the same progression into the middle class?

Finally, you’ll notice the bill contains an exemption for charitable donations. Think of it as the “Buffett Loophole” to the “Buffett Rule” since one of the more glaring ironies of the whole debate is that Warren Buffett has aggressively planned his estate to avoid paying any tax on most of his accumulated wealth. According to press accounts, he’s given most of his money away to foundations run by his children and Bill Gates. This new “Buffett Tax” won’t touch those transfers.

So we now have legislation to fix a problem that doesn’t exist in order to impose a new tax on a billionaire who’s already figured out how to avoid paying it. In the meantime, real taxpayers with real companies and real employees who aren’t in a position to hide all their wealth inside a foundation will be stuck paying the bill. Not helpful.

Romney Hot Seat

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:48:00 +0000

Last fall, billionaire Warren Buffett ignited a firestorm in the tax world when he revealed that he paid just 17.4% in tax — a lower rate than his own secretary — on his $39.8 million taxable income. The revelation sparked conversation across the country, and even inspired President Obama to propose a "Warren Buffett" rule imposing a special tax on income above $1 million per year.

Last week, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made similar headlines when he released his taxes. The returns weighed in at 547 pages, and included some items, like "Form 8261: Return By a Shareholder of a Passive Foreign Investment Company or Qualified Electing Fund," that most tax professionals never encounter in a lifetime. (Trust us when we tell you this stuff is every bit as exciting as it sounds.) Romney's not quite in Buffett's financial league — his 2010 taxable income was a "mere" $17.1 million. But Romney's actual tax rate was a similarly low 17.6%.

We're not here to take sides on Romney himself, his campaign, or the tax system that makes his 17% rate possible. But Romney's return illustrates a crucial lesson about your taxes, too — namely, that when it comes to paying less, how you make your money is even more important than how much money you make.

Romney's income is more than high enough to put him in the top 35% bracket. That 35% applies to "ordinary" income like wages and salaries, business income, and "passive" income from certain investments. But Mitt made "only" $6.3 million in ordinary income. Most of his income derives from other sources, taxed at lower rates:

Long-Term Capital Gains: Tax on long-term capital gains is capped at 15%, no matter how much gain you report. For 2010, Romney drew over half his income from such gains. This included $7.4 million in "carried interest," related to his work at Bain Capital, and taxed as long-term capital gain. If that income had been taxed at ordinary rates, he would have paid an extra $1.5 million. If it had been subject to employment tax, like salary, the government would have collected another $214,600.

Qualified Dividends: Tax on qualified dividends is also capped at 15%, regardless of how much income you report. Romney reported $3.3 million in qualified dividends for 2010. It's worth pointing out that the only dividends "qualifying" for this rate are those that have already been taxed at corporate rates ranging from 15-35%.

Tax-Free Municipal Bonds: Muni bonds are a traditional tax shelter for taxpayers in Romney's "1%" category. But Romney's home state of Massachusetts imposes a flat 5.3% tax, which makes munis less attractive compared to taxable bonds, for those with stratospheric income. So Romney reported just $557 in muni bond income for 2010.

If Romney winds up carrying the GOP flag in 2012, his taxes will be a campaign issue. But it's important to remember that, while some are criticizing him as the face of a system gone wrong, no one is actually accusing him of doing anything wrong under the law. In fact, Romney appears to have foregone some legitimate opportunities (like potential home office deductions for his speaking and director's fee income) to pay even less.

Judge Learned Hand famously wrote that "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury." (And with a name like Learned Hand, well, you just have to believe him.) We're here to help you arrange your affairs so that your taxes are as low as possible — and do so in a way to survive scrutiny even if you decide to run for office. And remember, we're here for your friends, family, and running mates, too!

My Interview on Fox 40 Live.

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:44:00 +0000

http://www.wpix.com/videogallery/67654699/News/How-to-Increase-Your-Tax-Refund-Owen-Arnoff-Incompass-Tax-Estate

Can't Buy Me Love!

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:11:00 +0000

Heiress Huguette Clark, who was born in 1906 and died last May at 104, was America's last living link to the 1890s "Gilded Age." Her father, William A. Clark, was Montana's "Copper King" and, according to her New York Times obituary, "once bought himself a United States Senate seat as casually as another man might buy a pair of shoes." Huguette grew up in a 121-room mansion, at the corner of New York's Fifth Avenue and 77th Street, that cost three times as much as Yankee Stadium. But her life soon took an odd turn. She married, for just a year at age 22, then got a quickie Reno divorce. (Her husand claimed they never even consummated the marriage.) Then she and her mother withdrew almost completely from view. The last known photograph of her was taken in 1930, and she rarely appeared in public after her mother's death in 1963.

Clark may have been shy, but she was no miser. She spent most of her life in a 42-room coop at Fifth Avenue and 72nd Street, said to be the largest parkview apartment in the city, and worth an estimated $100 million. (She left in an ambulance in 1988 and never came back.) She owned a 21,666-square-foot mansion called "Bellosguardo," or "lovely view," on 23 acres overlooking the Pacific in Santa Barbara, CA. (She stopped visiting sometime in the 1950s, and reportedly turned down a $100 million offer to sell it to Beanie Baby founder Ty Warner.) And in 1952, she bought a 22-room mansion on 52 acres in New Canaan, CT. (She added a new wing to the house and hired caretakers to live on the grounds — but never spent a single night there herself.)

Huguette had so little contact with the world that some people wondered if she was actually still alive. It turns out she spent her last 22 years in a series of ordinary rooms at New York hospitals. She had few visitors during this time, and little contact with anyone outside these facilities. But her few contacts included her attorney, Wally Bock, and her accountant, Irving Kamsler. And that's where Clark's Gilded Age story begins to tarnish.

Clark was worth half a billion dollars at her death. She left the bulk of her fortune to charity, with smaller bequests to her longtime nurse ($30 million), her goddaughter ($12 million), and her attorney and accountant ($500,000 each). You would think she'd be able to pay her taxes, right? But property records show the IRS filed four liens for unpaid taxes — $1 million in 2006, $1.1 million and $41,000 in 2007, and $7,400 in 2008. Even worse, according to a Probate Court filing, the pair had let unpaid federal gift taxes and penalties accrue — to the tune of $90 million!

It turns out both the attorney Bock and accountant Kamsler have a history of questionable conduct. When Bock's former law parter Donald Wallace died, after revising his will six times in the last few years of his life, Bock and Kamsler wound up inheriting $100,000 in cash each — plus Wallace's Mercedes and his Upper East Side apartment. They even collected $368,000 in fees on the $4 million estate! And, just by the way, Kamsler is also a convicted felon and registered sex offender, who pled guilty in 2007 to attempting to disseminate indecent material to minors in an online "chat room."

As Huguette Clark's bizarre story reminds us, money really can't buy happiness. Our job, of course, is to help you pay the minimum tax allowed by law. But before you ask us what we can do to help you pay less, ask yourself how those savings will improve your life. Are you working to put your children through college? Build security for your retirement? Or are you looking for life's little "extras," like traveling in style? Those are the real benefits we work to give you — not just numbers on your annual IRS "scorecard"!

IRS Goes Where the Money Is!

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:42:00 +0000

The outlaw Willie Sutton stole an estimated $2 million over a 40-year career robbing banks — and scored the ultimate "success" in his business, living long enough to die of natural causes. Sutton always carried a pistol or Tommy gun with him on jobs, declaring "you can't rob a bank on charm and personality." But the gun was never loaded, because, as he said, someone might have gotten hurt! And he became legendary, ironically, for something he never actually said. According to the story, Sutton was asked why he robbed banks — and replied "because that's where the money is." But in his 1976 autobiography, Where the Money Was: The Memoirs of a Bank Robber, he confessed that credit for the line belongs to "some enterprising reporter who apparently felt a need to fill out his copy."

What does a depression-era bank robber have to do with taxes? Well, the IRS estimates that outlaw taxpayers cost the Treasury $385 billion per year in uncollected taxes — roughly 15% of the amount they believe is due under current law. So they work hard to close that gap. In FY 2011, the IRS employed over 22,000 revenue officers, revenue agents, and special agents. They conducted 391,621 "field" audits and 1,173,069 less-intensive "correspondence" audits. They filed levies on 3.7 million taxpayers and filed over a million liens. But they can't turn over every rock. So how do they case their targets?

Earlier this month, the IRS released their FY 2011 Enforcement and Service Results revealing how likely you are to be audited. And even Willie Sutton would have appreciated the IRS's "M.O.":

If you make less than $200,000, your overall audit risk is only about one in a hundred. (Of course, that average encompasses a range of possibilities. If you run a sole proprietorship in a cash-heavy business like takeout pizza, your risk may be far higher.)

If you make over $200,000, your overall audit risk rises to about one in twenty-five. Obviously, the IRS sees more opportunity in chasing higher income earners.

If you pull down over $1 million, your audit risk rises again to one in eight. Welcome to the 1%!

The IRS likes targeting entertainers, athletes, and other celebrities, too. Sure, it sets a high-profile example for the rest of us. But it's also (spoiler alert) where the money is. Take Hollywood trainwreck Lindsay Lohan, for example. Google her name, and you'll usually find it followed by "failed another breathalyzer test" or "missed her court-appointed community service." But last week, Lohan made a different kind of headline. That's right, the IRS filed a lien against her home seeking $93,701.57 in upaid taxes from 2009.

Where does that all leave us as we move into this year's tax season? Our job is to help you pay the minimum tax allowed by law. But we know the IRS is out to challenge us. So we don't cut corners. We give you good, solid planning. That way, even if you do lose the "audit lottery," you'll feel safe knowing your savings are court-tested and IRS-approved.

Tax Detectives, on the Case

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 02:45:00 +0000

The IRS is busy playing detective! But are they building cases, clue by meticulous clue, like the supersleuths of television's CSI? Or are they falling on their faces like the bumbling Inspector Clouseau?

Last month, a federal judge gave the IRS permission to serve a "John Doe" summons on the California Board of Equalization, demanding names of residents who transferred real estate to children or grandchildren for little or no consideration. The IRS sought the names as part of a nationwide effort to find taxpayers who transfer property to relatives without filing gift tax returns. (The IRS had already rounded up information from Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington state and Wisconsin — but California officials objected that state law prohibited them from ratting out residents without court approval.)

Most people don't know much about gift tax, for the simple reason that most people won't ever pay gift tax. Gift tax law lets you give up to $13,000 per year to as many people as you like. Once your gifts to any single person (other than your spouse) top $13,000 in a year, you're required to file gift tax returns. Your cumulative lifetime gifts count against your estate tax "unified credit," which is the amount you're allowed to leave free of estate tax. And once your cumulative lifetime gifts top $5,012,000, you owe a 35% tax on the excess. If you're gifting to a grandchild or some other person more than one generation removed, you might even owe an extra 35% "generation-skipping" tax.

How does that lead the IRS to combing state property records like a sleazy private investigator tracking down a cheating husband? Well, transferring property into an heir's name is a common estate-planning move. Let's say you own a beloved vacation home, or a stock portfolio, and you don't want to see it burdened by probate. You can just add your child's name to the deed or account as "joint tenant with right of survivorship," and at your death, voila, the property automatically passes to your child. But there's a catch — transferring property like that counts as a "complete gift." If that property is worth $1,000,000, you've just made a $500,000 gift!

This particular IRS "project" is already yielding results. The IRS filed an affidavit in the California case stating that they had examined 658 taxpayers who transferred property to relatives — and concluded that 238 of them should have filed Form 709 to report the gift. Twenty of those 238 were assessed actual tax because the transfers pushed them over their lifetime exemption.

This isn't the first time the IRS has used the "John Doe" summons to flush out members of suspect groups. Back in 2002, the IRS subpoenaed MasterCard and Visa to find taxpayers using debit cards tied to accounts in offshore tax havens. And in 2008, they used it to find taxpayers hiding Swiss bank accounts. The Internal Revenue Manual puts strict limits on this tool. But if today's efforts succeed in finding lost revenue, we can probably expect to see more in the future.

There are a couple of lessons here. First, many financial moves — like transferring property into your kids' names — have hidden tax consequences that are easy to miss. And second, the IRS has more ways than you realize to find those consequences. So don't take chances, especially when they might land you on the wrong end of an IRS subpoena! You know how the utility company tells you to "call before you dig"? Well, call us before you dig, and we'll help you avoid all sorts of nasty surprises!

Nickels and Dimes

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 21:26:00 +0000

Last Thursday, cellphone carrier Verizon Wireless announced a new $2 fee for one-time payments made online or over the phone. On Friday, the Federal Communications Commission immediately announced they were "concerned about Verizon's actions" and planned to look into the matter. At the same time, over 158,000 visitors signed an online petition demanding that Verizon drop the fee. In fact, the website hosting the petition expressed shock that "while you are instituting this new fee, Verizon paid zero federal income tax from 2008-2010, and actually got almost a billion dollars in rebates from taxpayers." Verizon immediately beat a hasty retreat and dropped the proposed fee.

Verizon is hardly the only corporate giant to float new fees, only to see them immediately fall back to earth. Back in September, Bank of America announced plans to charge a $5 monthly fee for customers making debit card purchases — then, after howls of customer protest, backed off just five weeks later. Other banks, which had tested similar debit card fees, killed their fees too in the wake of the protests.

There's a pattern developing here. In today's struggling economy, companies can't impose the broad-based price hikes they really want. So they settle for nickel-and-diming us with junk fees. Unfortunately for them, consumers are pushing back — and at least with Verizon and the banks, the customers are winning.

There's a similar pattern at work in today's Washington. Candidates can talk 'till they're blue in the face about bold sweeping change, like Rick Perry's 20% flat tax and Herman Cain's attention-grabbing "9-9-9" plan. (If you close your eyes right now, I bet you can still hear Cain saying "9-9-9" in your head.) But in today's hyper-partisan Congress, the actual legislators in charge of implementing all those bright ideas can't find the consensus to name a Post Office, let alone remake the tax code in any meaningful way. So they settle for nickel-and-diming the system — extending the payroll tax holiday for a miserly 60 days instead of a full year, and paying for it by levying fees on mortgages sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac rather than by raising taxes on million-dollar earners.

Even when legislators extend new breaks, they tend to be for small amounts, like the $800 "Making Work Pay" credit or $1,500 for home energy improvements. New tax breaks also tend to be short-lived: the 2009 deduction for sales tax on new cars lasted 10½ months, and the much-ballyhooed "Cash for Clunkers" program lasted just 56 days.

The problem, of course, is that Washington's version of nickel-and-diming us adds up fast. A couple of bucks for online bill payments here and $5 for monthly debit-card usage there? Maybe it cuts into your Starbucks budget. But closing tax breaks hurts. As former Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen famously said, "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money." And IRS "customers" can't threaten to take their "business" somewhere else like customers at the bank.

2012 is an election year, of course, which means we can expect even less in the way of substantive action — at least for the next 10 months. But that may all change after November 6, as the Bush tax cuts expire after December 31. If the upcoming election leaves Washington as divided as it is now, we can expect a repeat of last summer's debt-ceiling battle. Our job is to keep on top of all the news to safeguard your nickels and dimes, regardless of what happens in November. And that means planning. Remember, being proactive, now, is the key to keeping your tax bill as low as possible in 2012 and beyond. So, if one of your New Year's resolutions is to get out in front of the tax nickel-and-dimers, give us a call!

We're Number One!

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 20:31:00 +0000

New Year's day is almost here, and for millions of Americans, that means college football bowl games. Fans and alumni across the country are gearing up to root for their favorite school. LSU fans cry "Geaux Tigers!" 'Bama fans chant "Roll, Tide, Roll!" But only one team will be champion come January 9.

Regardless of which gridiron gladiators we support for the BCS championship, Americans are #1 in another competition. That's right, Americans cheat their government out of more tax dollars than the citizens of any other country in the world!

A recent study by the Tax Justice Network, a British think-tank dedicated to transparency in international finance, shows the U.S. government lost $337 billion annually to tax evasion. We're followed by Brazil ($280 billion), Italy ($238 billion), Russia, Germany, France, Japan, China, U.K., and Spain. Overall, the study finds that worldwide tax evasion tops $3 trillion, or 5% of the world's economy.

However, while Americans are #1 in absolute dollars lost to cheating, we're not actually the biggest fibbers. The report attempts to quantify the size of each country's "shadow economy" that hides from official view to avoid tax. Russia is the biggest loser here, with 44% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lurking underground and evading tax. Brazil is next, with 39% of its economy hiding in the shadows. Our own shadow economy, at 8.6% of GDP, is actually the smallest of those top ten tax evaders listed above.

Looking at it from a different perspective, next to the cost of financing government, the cost of financing health care is perhaps our country's biggest fiscal challenge. The Tax Justice Network's report draws an interesting contrast between each country's cost of tax cheating and cost of health care. Worldwide tax evasion costs an average of 55% of worldwide health care costs. But that average encompasses an enormous range. Here in the U.S., for example, tax evasion drains the equivalent of just 15% of our national health care budget. By contrast, in Bolivia, where the "shadow economy" accounts for 66% of GDP, tax evasion costs that nation more than four times the amount of their annual health care spending.

American tax cheats may even show a conscientious side. The Charities Aid Foundation, a British organization dedicated to encouraging efficient charitable giving, just released their World Giving Index 2011 report. They found that the U.S. is #1 in charitable giving, out of 153 countries surveyed. "Using data from Gallup's Worldview World Poll," the report says, "the results show that the USA is officially the most charitable nation in the world." Now there's something we can all take pride in this holiday season!

The irony here is that there are so many legal ways to pay less tax that nobody needs to cheat. Proactive planning is the key to paying less tax without having to hide in the shadows. As 2012 dawns, remember that we're here to deliver that planning — for you, and for your family, friends, and colleagues as well.

More Money for Millionaires

noreply@blogger.com (Owen S. Arnoff, EA) — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 02:41:00 +0000

Last year's federal budget deficit topped $1.48 billion. With money so tight, you'd expect government to focus its efforts on those who really need the help. But that's far from the case, according to Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. Last month, he released a 37-page report entitled Subsidies of the Rich and Famous, outlining "sheer Washington stupidity" that he claims costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

The first part of Coburn's report focuses on direct payments like Social Security and Medicare benefits, unemployment benefits, and farm subsidies. (NBA star Scottie Pippen, rocker Bruce Springsteen, and billionaire broadcaster Ted Turner have all gotten federal farm subsidies.) But Coburn also heaps his scorn on specific tax breaks that he calls a "reverse Robin Hood style of wealth distribution." He claims he's not interested in raising rates on anyone. And he cautions against demonizing "those who are successful." But he does want to means-test benefits, close loopholes, and limit deductions that pamper millionaires with "unnecessary welfare to create an appearance everyone is benefiting from federal programs."

What sort of tax breaks have Senator Coburn so upset? Here are three:

"Subsidizing Millionaires' Mansions": For 2009, 143,441 out of the 235,413 taxpayers reporting incomes over $1 million claimed mortgage interest deductions, averaging $30,995 each.

Rental Expense Deduction: 69,074 of those million-dollar earners claimed a total of $12.5 billion in rental property expenses, including mortgage interest, cleaning and maintenance, and depreciation.

Gambling Losses Deduction: Finally, 8,225 of the top earners reported a total of $4.2 billion in gambling losses.

Coburn's points seem reasonable at first glance. Does Oprah Winfrey really "need" a tax break for her $50 million California mansion? Should Vegas high-rollers count on us to bail them out when the dice come up snake eyes? On closer look, however, his objections may not hold up. The mortgage interest deduction, for example, is already limited to interest on $1 million of "acquisition indebtedness" on a primary residence and one additional residence, plus $100,000 of home equity indebtedness. Coburn would ditch the deductions for second homes and home equity interest, and drop the overall cap to $500,000 of indebtedness. But critics respond that over 11% of American homes are valued over $500,000, and limiting the deduction would cut home prices off at the knees at a time when they need all the support they can get.

Coburn's objections to deducting rental real estate expenses and even gambling losses seem to make less sense. Paying tax on gross rents and gambling winnings? Rental real estate losses are already limited by "passive activity" rules. If millionaires can't deduct their rental real estate expenses, they won't invest in real estate at all. That would drag prices down in the same way as limiting mortgage interest deductions. And gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling winnings. Is it fair to tax anyone, millionaire or not, on gross winnings without letting them net out losses?

As the economy continues to struggle, Washington gridlock intensifies — just look at the bickering over the payroll tax cut extension, which both parties say they want. And the 2012 presidential election draws near, we can expect to hear more rhetoric like Coburn's. What do you think? Do tax breaks for millionaires offend your sense of fairness? Or should millionaires get to take advantage of the same rules as the rest of us?