Archive for 2015

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Over 1,100 Returns Filed from Two Addresses Lead to Two Heading to ClubFed

Sunday, October 25th, 2015

Two separate cases out of Broward County, Florida highlight that if you submit lots of tax returns from the same address even the IRS will get suspicious. A former band director and another Floridian will be heading to ClubFed in separate identity theft cases.

In the first case, a former band director apparently used his position to steal 419 identities. From the DOJ press release:

According to court documents, IRS-CI investigators noticed that 419 suspicious tax returns claiming refunds totaling $754,470 were filed from Rogers’ residential address from January 25, 2014 to April 20, 2014. Based on this information, a search warrant was executed at Rogers’ residence and agents discovered and seized papers, notes, and documents containing thousands of PII (including names, dates of birth, and social security numbers) including PII contained in records of more than a dozen Broward County School District students, some dating back to the late 1990s and others into the late 2000s. Agents also seized numerous printed 2013 tax returns.

Delvis Rogers of Hollywood, Florida admitted when his apartment was searched (under a search warrant) that he had prepared and filed hundreds of phony tax returns from his apartment. Mr. Rogers pleaded guilty to two identity theft related charges. He received 61 months at ClubFed and agreed to make restitution to the IRS of $129,321.

In the second case, Keyiona Wright of Plantation, Florida pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. From the DOJ press release:

According to court documents, from March 25, 2014 to May 6, 2015, forty-six federal tax returns were filed with the IRS claiming refunds of $135,196 from an IP address in Plantation. From September 16, 2014 to May 5, 2015, at least 688 rejected federal tax returns, claiming refunds of $733,276, were electronically transmitted to the IRS from this same IP address. Agents confirmed that the IP address was assigned to an apartment rented by Wright.

A search warrant found notebooks, bags, documents, papers, and computers containing personal identification information. “A forensic analysis revealed that the documents, computers, and debit/credit cards seized from Wright’s residence contained identifying or account information for over 14,000 individuals.” And agents found another computer that had a video with Ms. Wright counting money. At least she didn’t post it on Facebook like the Queen of Tax Fraud.

In the end, Ms. Wright pled guilty. She’ll have plenty of time at ClubFed to think over her decisions; she was sentenced to 7 years.

Tags:
Posted in Tax Fraud | 2 Comments »

Monsters Under the Bed

Sunday, October 25th, 2015

Two Florida tax preparers (I hesitate to use the word “professionals” based on what they’re accused of) are facing a lawsuit from the Department of Justice seeking a civil injunction to prevent them from owning a tax preparation firm and preparing returns for others. This lawsuit is derived from other lawsuits against individuals related to LBS Tax Services.

It seems that Christopher Lawrence and Kenneth Aikens, proprietors of “Tax Mon$Ter” and “Tax Pros,” are accused of doing many of the practices that bad preparers use to get bad refunds: false earned income tax credit, incorrect filing status, phony businesses, fake unreimbursed business expenses, and one that we don’t see that often: unconscionable fees. From the DOJ press release:

According to the complaint, Lawrence and Aikens target primarily low-income customers with deceptive and misleading advertisements, prepare and file fraudulent tax returns to fraudulently increase their customers’ refunds and profit through unconscionable, exorbitant and often undisclosed fees—all at the expense of their customers and the U.S. Treasury.

There are two main points to realize from this story. First, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. If your tax “professional” is promising you a huge refund but something doesn’t sound right, there likely is something wrong. Second, the IRS has methods today to go after bad tax professionals. Suppose I start inventing deductions and credits, adding phony dependents, and otherwise abuse the system, the IRS can come after me. Even unlicensed tax professionals can be gone after–and it appears that’s the case here.

Tags:
Posted in IRS, Tax Preparation | Comments Closed

Up In Smoke, Again

Thursday, October 22nd, 2015

A California non-profit corporation tried to find a way around Section 280E of the Tax Code at Tax Court. Would they be successful or would yet another marijuana business fall victim to the difference between federal and state law?

In 1996 California approved medical marijuana. However, federal law make marijuana a Schedule I controlled substance under Section 280E of the Tax Code. The petitioner in the case is a non-profit corporation (technically, a California mutual benefit corporation that is not for profit). The IRS had disallowed business expenses because of Section 280E of the Tax Code. The petitioner timely filed a Tax Court petition.

The problem that the petitioner faces is basically that federal law trumps state law. The Federal Drug Enforcement Administration lists marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance. In Olive v. Commissioner, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated,

[T]he only question Congress allows us to ask is whether marijuana is a controlled substance ‘prohibited by Federal law.’ * * * If Congress now thinks that the policy embodied in § 280E is unwise as applied to medical marijuana sold in conformance with state law, it can change the statute. We may not.

The petitioner tried to argue that he was in multiple lines of businesses, so that some portion of the business expenses would be deductible. The Tax Court was having none of that:

Because of the parties’ stipulation, we find that the sale of medical marijuana was petitioner’s primary source of income and that the sale of any other item was an activity incident to its business of distributing medical marijuana. We find that petitioner was engaged in one business–the business of selling medical marijuana.

With Section 280E prohibiting deductions for business expenses, the IRS’s deficiencies were upheld. Medical marijuana might be legal under California law, and expenses are deductible on California tax returns. However, until Congress changes the law business expenses for marijuana dispensaries cannot be taken on federal tax returns.

Case: Canna Care, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2015-206

Tags:
Posted in IRS, Tax Court | 1 Comment »

The Wagering Excise Tax and DFS

Tuesday, October 20th, 2015

I’m focusing on the tax aspects of daily fantasy sports (DFS) this week. It’s beneficial for DFS participants for the activity to be considered gambling. For political reasons (“gambling is a sin”) and regulatory reasons (gambling is regulated, skill contests are not), the DFS sites want to be considered skill games sites. There’s another reason that DFS sites don’t want to be considered gambling: the wagering excise tax.

The wagering excise tax is either a 0.25% or 2% tax on bets made on certain activities. It falls on wagers on sports events or contests, wagers placed in a wagering pool that involves a sports event or contest (if the pool is conducted for profit), and lotteries conducted for a profit. The tax is on the gross amount of wagers received, not the amount someone might win. Would this tax apply to DFS if DFS is considered gambling?

We can look at the Tax Code and the regulations promulgated under the Code to determine this. A wagering pool conducted for profit includes any method or scheme for the distribution of prizes to one or more winning bettors based on the outcome of a sports event, a contest, or a combination or series of such events or contests, if the wagering pool is managed and conducted for the purpose of making a profit. (Regulations 44.4421-1(c)(1) and 44.4421-1(c)(2)) DFS clearly meets the definition of a wagering pool.

So what’s a contest? Regulation 44.4421-1(c)(3) states that includes any type of competition involving speed, skill, endurance, popularity, politics, strength, appearance, etc., such as a general or primary election, the outcome of a nomination convention, a dance marathon, a log rolling, wood-chopping, weight-lifting, corn-husking, beauty contest, etc. Clearly, a weekend of NFL games (or anything else that DFS contests/bets are based on) would qualify.

You may have noticed there are two different tax rates (0.25% and 2%). The 0.25% tax rate applies on any wager authorized under the law of the state in which accepted (IRC § 4401(a)(1)), otherwise the tax rate is 2% (IRC § 4401(a)(2)).

It’s pretty clear to objective observers that DFS is a form of wagering (aka gambling). If that conclusion is accurate, the DFS sites will owe the wagering excise tax.

Tags:
Posted in Gambling | 1 Comment »

The Future of DFS

Sunday, October 18th, 2015

If you watch any sports television, you’ve almost certainly seen commercials for the two leading daily fantasy sports (DFS) sites, DraftKings and FanDuel. Last week the Nevada Gaming Control Board announced that DFS is gambling under Nevada law. The Nevada Attorney General’s office released a 17-page review of DFS that thoroughly explained the reasoning. What does this mean for the future of DFS in both Nevada and the US?

First, none of this should have been a surprise. In February 2014 I wrote,

Unfortunately, many states look at just an element of chance to determine if something is gambling. And there’s no doubt that daily fantasy sports have such an element. The problem is that these sites are starting to bring in large dollars. That attracts attention, and some state attorney general is going to wonder the same thing that I am. He or she will conclude that the Duck Test applies and that these are gambling sites in violation of his or her state’s laws. [emphasis in original]

Nevada is not going to be the only state that concludes that DFS is gambling. The head of the Michigan Gaming Control Board has publicly stated that DFS is gambling. Other states will conclude that under their laws that DFS is gambling and either needs a license or should be banned from the state. Nevada may have been the first state to draw this conclusion but it will not be the last.

The problem is how regulators look at something new. Generally, the view of a regulator is that if it hasn’t been made expressly legal under the law that it should be (and is, in their view) illegal. The mindset of most regulators will start with a “DFS is illegal” view. In my first job I learned that perception of reality is far more important than the reality itself. This does not bode well for DFS.

Meanwhile, there’s a federal grand jury investigation of DFS that’s ongoing in Tampa, Florida. This has caused some operators to pull out of Florida. While the DFS sites have proclaimed that the UIGEA (the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006) made DFS legal, the analysis of the Nevada Attorney General puts a stake in that argument. DFS is exempted from the UIGEA but not from other federal and state laws related to gambling.

There’s also a huge risk for DFS from the IRS. What if the IRS concludes that DFS is gambling and that instead of issuing Form 1099-MISC’s to winners they should issue Form W-2Gs? This would be a national conclusion, and give a prima facie case that DFS is gambling. And this could easily happen.

There’s also reality: the duck test. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it just might be a duck. Many DFS participants view it as gambling. Apparently the executives at DraftKings share that view (see the Nevada Attorney General’s report). In the United States gambling is regulated at the state level (along with the federal level). Unless authorized by a state, most gambling in that state is illegal. DFS has not been authorized by any state. (The Massachusetts Attorney General recently stated that DFS was legal in that state. However, it has not been expressly authorized.)

So where does that leave DFS? Someone I know said, “In like 25 years when everyone with any power will have grown up with the Internet, will things be different?” That’s easy to answer: Yes. But we have to live in today’s world, not what it will be in 2040. I expect DFS to follow two different paths in the majority of states. Some states will simply declare it as gambling, making it effectively illegal in those states. Other states will tacitly declare it as gambling but allow regulation of the activity. There will be a minority of states that allow DFS to continue as an unregulated activity. Where one month ago you could play DFS in 45 of the 50 states, that number is down to 42 to 44 states (depending on the DFS site). I expect that number to continue to fall.

Could federal regulation happen? Certainly, but not out of this Congress in the next year. This isn’t a major issue for either party, and 2016 is an election year. Additionally, it’s possible that the next Speaker of the House will be Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah); he’s definitely not pro-gambling. There’s a better chance of the IRS budget being increased (and that has just about a 0% chance of happening) than pro-gambling (or pro-DFS) legislation passing Congress.

Overall, I’m painting a bleak future for DFS in the United States. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong, but the signs are there. Perhaps it was P.T. Barnum who said, “All publicity is good publicity.” (Like the duck test quote, this, too, has been attributed to many individuals.) The advertising and publicity have helped DFS short-term profits. The current publicity has not, though, helped DFS’s future.

Tags:
Posted in Gambling | 1 Comment »

That Was the Year that Was

Sunday, October 18th, 2015

Last November I wrote about “The Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Upcoming Tax Season.” This definitely wasn’t the best tax season but it also wasn’t the worst (but it was close to the bottom). The four issues that I identified as problems were tax extenders, the IRS budget, the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare), and the IRS Property/Capitalization regulations.

Tax extenders were passed late, but there weren’t any surprises. Thus, the impact to the 2015 Tax Season was minimal.

The same can’t be true for the IRS budget cuts. This probably impacted me more than any of the other issues I faced. Calling the IRS was almost a joke. The “Practitioner Priority Service” hold times were so bad that I’d hate to think of what they were for regular numbers. Unfortunately, I see no improvement possible with the IRS budget until the IRS scandal is resolved. That’s not going to happen until we have a new President, so we have probably two more years of misery in dealing with the IRS.

(The Obama Administration promised to be the most transparent in history. Its record is one of obfuscation and deceit, not of being open and honest.)

For the most part ObamaCare did not impact many of my clients. Of course, for 2014 tax returns a client could self-certify they had health insurance. Coming for 2015 returns will be IRS Forms 1095-B and 1095-C. Almost everyone will need to provide tax professionals with a health insurance form.

The property regulations almost had a huge impact. A literal reading of the regulations was that everyone impacted needed to file a Form 3115. The IRS realized that they didn’t have the personnel to handle the incoming tsunami of paperwork and, at the last moment, issued procedures that basically mitigated the impact of the new regulations.

While I’ll post about the upcoming season in another month, it looks like deja vu all over again. Once more, tax extenders haven’t passed, we have another year of impacts of ObamaCare, and the IRS budget constraints will continue. Unfortunately, this year I’m not taking a vacation to New Zealand and Australia in December. In any case, tax professional will likely be grouchy next tax season, too.

Tags:,
Posted in IRS, Tax Preparation, Taxable Talk | 1 Comment »

It’s October 13th and I’m Still Not Ready to File my Taxes; What Should I Do?

Monday, October 12th, 2015

Somewhere, there’s a procrastinator wondering that exact question. He’s likely thinking, “I don’t have to do anything; I have until October 15th!” That’s not a good answer (with one exception [1]).

First, most tax professionals will not be able to fit you in. I took in one new client appointment this week—and he’s filling a cancellation. Determine your income, gather all your documents, and do your best. Tax forms are available online (the IRS website is actually quite good). Commercial tax software, though flawed [2], is a good choice at this point in time.

If possible, file electronically. If you must mail your tax return, use certified mail, return receipt requested. That means going to a post office or using an automated postal center (there’s one at the supermarket near my house).

Normally it’s better to extend than amend. If you’re a procrastinator, you can’t extend. Thus, if you file your return and you’re still a bit uncertain, consider meeting with a tax professional next week. He or she can review the return and determine if your return needs to be amended.

The clock is about to strike midnight.

[1] I have one client who is on extension who was impacted by the terrible flooding in South Carolina. That client has a lot more to deal with right now than filing taxes. The IRS and the South Carolina Department of Revenue extended the tax deadline for impacted South Carolinians until February 16, 2016.

[2] I disagree with fellow tax professional Robert Flach on his description that all tax software is fatally flawed. For individuals in simple situation it works perfectly. It doesn’t make math mistakes. And it usually allows for seamless electronic filing. I agree with Robert that the ability to look at a return and evaluate what’s on it (does it pass the smell test) is vital but when you’re up against a deadline, you don’t have a choice.

Posted in IRS, Tax Preparation | 3 Comments »

Gilbert Hyatt Goes to Washington…Again

Sunday, October 11th, 2015

The Franchise Tax Board sent out a release on Friday noting that oral arguments in California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt will take place on December 7th. This is the second time this case has reached the US Supreme Court. Back in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that Gilbert Hyatt could sue the Franchise Tax Board in Nevada. That was after the FTB rummaged through his trash. The FTB was then hit with over $400 million in damages. However, the Nevada Supreme Court threw out much of the decision, though the court upheld that the FTB committed fraud against Mr. Hyatt.

The ever-wonderful SCOTUSBLOG has links to the amicus curiea briefs that have been filed (and the FTB’s brief). Mr. Hyatt’s counsel was granted an extension until October 23rd to file his brief.

It will be interesting if this case–decided unanimously in its first Supreme Court iteration–is decided differently on the second iteration. In any case, a decision should come as early as March.

Tags:
Posted in California | 1 Comment »

IRS to Tax Professionals: Rules for Thee but Not for Us

Thursday, October 8th, 2015

Today I received an alert from the IRS that a new version of Publication 4557 is available. (At this point, only the web version of the publication is available.) Interestingly, the IRS notes the following:

To safeguard taxpayer information, you must determine the appropriate security controls for your environment based on the size, complexity, nature and scope of your activities. Security controls are the management, operational and technical safeguards you may use to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of your customers’ information. Examples of security controls are:

1. Locking doors to restrict access to paper or electronic files;
2. Requiring passwords to restrict access to computer files;
3. Encrypting electronically stored taxpayer data;
4 .Keeping a backup of electronic data for recovery purposes;
5. Shredding paper containing taxpayer information before throwing it in the trash.
6. Do not mail unencrypted sensitive personal information.

Further, Authorized IRS e-file Providers that participate in the role as an Online Provider must follow the six security, privacy and business standards to better serve taxpayers and protect their individual income tax information collected, processed and stored. See “Safeguarding IRS e-file” in Publication 1345 for more information. [emphasis added]

There’s nothing wrong with these recommendations; in fact, they’re excellent. But note that the IRS says that authorized e-file providers that participate in the role as an Online Provider must follow these rules.

I highlighted the last rule (#6, above) regarding mailing unencrypted sensitive personal information. Why? Because the IRS is one of the biggest offenders in this area. Indeed, just yesterday TIGTA (the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration) issued a report stating this. From the TIGTA press release:

In Fiscal Year 2014, the IRS mailed more than 141 million notices and 37 million letters to taxpayers for various reasons, to help them understand and meet their tax obligations. In a prior review, TIGTA reported that the IRS had not made significant progress in redacting or masking taxpayers’ SSNs from systems, notices, and forms. This audit was initiated to assess the IRS’s progress in eliminating taxpayer SSNs from correspondence.

TIGTA found that as of January 2015, the IRS estimates that it has removed SSNs from 58 (2 percent) of the 2,749 types of letters and 93 (48 percent) of the 195 types of notices it issues.

“A person’s Social Security Number is the most valuable piece of personal data identity thieves can obtain.” said J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. “The fact that the IRS does not have processes and procedures to accurately identify all correspondence that contain Social Security Numbers remains a concern.”

There’s not much to add to this. The IRS needs to act on this as they are a far larger source of identity theft than tax professionals. I state that as I open up an IRS letter and an IRS notice to clients that both contain their social security numbers. And there was the IRS notice which didn’t have the full social security number but put the number within a bar code instead….

Tags:,
Posted in IRS | 2 Comments »

Tax Relief for South Carolinians

Wednesday, October 7th, 2015

South Carolina was devastated by a 1000-year storm. Much of the state has been declared a disaster area. A friend of mine who lives in Columbia tweeted pictures that show the absolutely ridiculous amount of flooding. The IRS has offered relief for taxpayers in several counties in South Carolina.

Here is the IRS announcement:

WASHINGTON ––South Carolina flood victims, including individuals and businesses that previously received a tax-filing extension to Oct. 15, will have until Feb. 16, 2016, to file their returns and pay any taxes due, the Internal Revenue Service announced today. All workers assisting the relief activities who are affiliated with a recognized government or philanthropic organization also qualify for relief.

Following this week’s disaster declaration for individual assistance issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the IRS said that affected taxpayers in Berkeley, Charleston, Clarendon, Dorchester, Georgetown, Horry, Lexington, Orangeburg, Richland, Sumter and Williamsburg Counties will receive this and other special tax relief. Other locations may be added in coming days, based on damage assessments by FEMA.

The tax relief postpones various tax filing and payment deadlines that occurred starting on Oct. 1, 2015. As a result, affected individuals and businesses will have until Feb. 16, 2016, to file these returns and pay any taxes due. Besides the Oct. 15 extension deadline, this also includes the Jan. 15, 2016, deadline for making quarterly estimated tax payments. A variety of business tax deadlines are also affected including the Nov. 2, 2015, and Feb. 1, 2016, deadlines for quarterly payroll and excise tax returns.

The IRS will abate any interest, late-payment or late-filing penalty that would otherwise apply. The agency automatically provides this relief to any taxpayer with an IRS address of record located in the disaster area. Taxpayers need not contact the IRS to get this relief.

Beyond Designated Disaster Areas

The IRS will work with any taxpayer who lives outside the disaster area but whose records necessary to meet a deadline occurring during the postponement period are located in the affected area. Taxpayers qualifying for relief who live outside the disaster area need to contact the IRS at 866-562-5227.

The South Carolina Department of Revenue is following suit; they are providing the same relief as the IRS.

Note that the relief is automatic; impacted taxpayers need not do anything. The exception to this are impacted taxpayers who do not live in one of the counties noted in the IRS declaration.

Posted in South Carolina | 2 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »