Archive for March, 2019

Oklahoma Limits Itemized Deductions; Big Hit for Amateur Gamblers

Saturday, March 30th, 2019

Suppose you’re an Oklahoma resident and enjoy gambling one of the many casinos in the Sooner State. You have $100,000 of gambling winnings and $100,000 of gambling losses. You itemize on your federal return anyway (you have mortgage interest, state taxes, and charitable donations), and the wash is just fine. On your Oklahoma return, you’re surprised to find your Oklahoma charitable donations are limited to $17,000 (plus the amount of medical and charitable donations).

Yes, Oklahoma has joined the states that are bad for gamblers. In my hypothetical, an amateur gambler would pay tax on $83,000 of phantom income. This change is the result of a law passed in April 2018.

Posted in Gambling, Oklahoma | Comments Closed

Annual Blog Hiatus

Wednesday, March 20th, 2019

It’s time for our annual blog hiatus. We’ll be back after April 15th. Our annual series of Bozo Tax Tips will come out beginning April 1st, and if something truly remarkable happens in the tax world between now and April 15th we will report on it.

Tags:
Posted in Taxable Talk | Comments Closed

Can a California or Massachusetts Professional Gambler Take a Business Loss on His or Her State Tax Return?

Tuesday, March 19th, 2019

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) eliminated the ability of a professional gambler to take a loss on his Schedule C based on his business expenses; Congress specifically overrode the Mayo v Commissioner decision. But what about state taxes? Can a professional gambler who had a losing year take a loss on those returns?

First, no professional gambler can take a loss based on his gambling results. Internal Revenue Code Section 165(d) prohibits gambling losses in excess of wins. Every state with a state income tax conforms to this.

But state conformity to the TCJA is decidedly mixed. California does not conform to almost any part of the TCJA. The Franchise Tax Board produced a publication showing each change in law and the impact to California. At the bottom of page 89 is the beginning of the discussion on Section 11050 of the TCJA (which changed the rules for professional gamblers). The FTB publication notes:

California conforms, under the PITL, to the federal rules relating to the deduction for losses from wagering transaction[s] under IRC section 165(d), as of the specified date of January 1, 2015, but does not conform to the federal limitation on the deduction.

Thus, a California professional gambler can take a loss based on his business expenses on his state tax return.

Massachusetts also doesn’t conform to federal law in this area. However, Massachusetts does not allow losses from any business to be reported on its tax returns. Thus, a Massachusetts professional gambler wasn’t able to take a loss based on his business expenses in the past and cannot today.

State conformity on the provisions of the TCJA will vary among the states. If you reside in or must pay state taxes, this is a key issue that you must discuss with your tax professional.

Posted in California, Gambling, Massachusetts | Comments Closed

March 15th Tax Deadlines

Thursday, March 14th, 2019

Tomorrow, March 15th, is the first big tax deadline day. There are three tax deadlines on Friday:

First, partnership and S-Corporation returns are due. If your return isn’t completed, file an extension (Form 7004). If you file by mail, use certified mail, return receipt requested. You always want proof of your extension.

Second, Form 3520-A is due. This is one of the two forms for foreign trusts. Again, if your return isn’t completed there’s a simple solution: file Form 7004. You will almost certainly have to mail the extension for a Form 3520-A; you can find where to mail it in the instructions to Form 7004.

Finally, the Form 1042 series (Form 1042, Form 1042-S) are due. These are the information return series regarding payments to non-Americans. You can file Form 1042-S via the FIRE system (if you’re registered); Form 1042 generally has to be mailed to the IRS.

The deadline is a postmark deadline. If you mail your form via certified mail today or tomorrow and it takes a month to get to the IRS, it’s still considered timely (as long as it’s postmarked on or before March 15th). That’s why you want to use certified mail: You get proof (which is a good thing in dealing with the IRS).

Tags:
Posted in IRS | Comments Closed

Arizona Asks Supreme Court to Stop California From Imposing California Tax on Passive LLC Investments

Tuesday, March 12th, 2019

We’ve highlighted this issue before. Suppose you are an Arizona resident, and you form Primary LLC in Arizona. Its main purpose is owning a warehouse in Phoenix. But you have some extra money in the LLC, so you invest in Secondary LLC, a Nevada LLC. Secondary invests in various things, including Tertiary LLC, a California LLC. Would the Franchise Tax Board, California’s income tax agency, allege that Primary LLC is doing business in California? You bet. Would they come after you for California’s minimum $800 a year LLC tax? Absolutely. Would they then assess late filing penalties, filing fees, and interest if you don’t pay, and issue payment demands through banks? Of course they have and will do so.

Arizona’s Attorney General, Mark Brnovich, doesn’t like this. He alleges that California is illegally going after Arizona LLCs, and illegally demanding payments from Arizona banks. Mr. Brnovich is asking the US Supreme Court to allow Arizona to sue California at the Supreme Court, as there’s no other venue for such a lawsuit. The Supreme Court will likely rule on the first issue–whether the lawsuit can proceed–before the end of June. If the Supreme Court allows the lawsuit, it would likely be heard next fall or winter in Washington.

By the way, those entities who have fought the FTB in California courts have won their cases. The problem, though, is it costs just $800 to pay the LLC tax; it costs thousands of dollars to fight the FTB. Mr. Brnovich is absolutely correct that it doesn’t make sense for most companies to fight California.

Posted in Arizona, California, Supreme Court | Comments Closed

No Man Is an Island

Monday, March 11th, 2019

On Saturday a superb editorial appeared in the Providence Journal, “When Taxpayers Flee a State.” Here’s an excerpt:

Despite its name, Rhode Island is not an island unto itself. People are free to come and go, including business executives who create jobs and pay high taxes. That is why the state has to be careful that its tax policies do not drive away too many investors or taxpayers…

In high-tax Connecticut next door, billionaires are already escaping. As Chris Edwards of the libertarian Cato Institute notes (“Wealthy Taxpayers are Fleeing These States in Droves,” Daily Caller, Oct. 2), Connecticut in recent years “has lost stock trading entrepreneur Thomas Peterffy (worth $20 billion), executive C. Dean Metropoulos ($2 billion), and hedge fund managers Paul Tudor Jones ($4 billion) and Edward Lampert ($3 billion).”

People can, and will, relocate no matter how nice the climate. I loved living in Irvine, California, but California’s business climate drove me (and I’m not a billionaire) to low-tax, low-regulation Nevada. Rhode Island has lost $1.4 billion of income over the last ten years. The solution for both a small state (Rhode Island) and a large state (California) is identical: low tax rates over a broad swath, rather than very high tax rates in narrow areas. Of course, California now has high taxes over almost everything and a regulatory climate that is the worst in the country.

Posted in California, Connecticut, Nevada, Rhode Island | Comments Closed