This week's presentation is based on a presentation I made for the Virginia Society of CPAs' 8th Annual Industry Conference in Williamsburg on May 28, 2009 on gadgets and gizmos. The presentation includes a look at:
This week's presentation is based on a presentation I made for the Virginia Society of CPAs' 8th Annual Industry Conference in Williamsburg on May 28, 2009 on gadgets and gizmos. The presentation includes a look at:
This week's presentation is based on a presentation I made for the Virginia Society of CPAs' 8th Annual Industry Conference in Williamsburg on May 28, 2009 on gadgets and gizmos. The presentation includes a look at:
Education incentives have been a favorite of Congress in recent years, but this week we look at the old favorite of education as a business deduction, a provision covered by regulations last updated back in 1967. The Tax Court had cause to look into this in the case of Ray v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-71.
Education incentives have been a favorite of Congress in recent years, but this week we look at the old favorite of education as a business deduction, a provision covered by regulations last updated back in 1967. The Tax Court had cause to look into this in the case of Ray v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-71.
Education incentives have been a favorite of Congress in recent years, but this week we look at the old favorite of education as a business deduction, a provision covered by regulations last updated back in 1967. The Tax Court had cause to look into this in the case of Ray v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-71.
Last year there was lots of discussion regarding the changes to §6694 and how tax professionals were to apply the standards there against return positions. However, while the standard to be applied may have changed, there were standards in place before and this week we look at the case of a CPA that ran afoul of the lower standards. In the case if USA v. Kapp, (2009 TNT 84-30), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the issuance of an injunction against a CPA prohibiting him from taking a position on returns that failed the older §6694(a) standard for nondisclosed positions.
The case is of interest because the panel gives a practical walkthrough of analyzing the level of support that existed for a position, as well as noting those items of support that Mr. Kapp wished to rely upon but which did not serve to help his cause.
Last year there was lots of discussion regarding the changes to Â6694 and how tax professionals were to apply the standards there against return positions. However, while the standard to be applied may have changed, there were standards in place before and this week we look at the case of a CPA that ran afoul of the lower standards. In the case if USA v. Kapp, (2009 TNT 84-30), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the issuance of an injunction against a CPA prohibiting him from taking a position on returns that failed the older Â6694(a) standard for nondisclosed positions.
The case is of interest because the panel gives a practical walkthrough of analyzing the level of support that existed for a position, as well as noting those items of support that Mr. Kapp wished to rely upon but which did not serve to help his cause.
Last year there was lots of discussion regarding the changes to Â6694 and how tax professionals were to apply the standards there against return positions. However, while the standard to be applied may have changed, there were standards in place before and this week we look at the case of a CPA that ran afoul of the lower standards. In the case if USA v. Kapp, (2009 TNT 84-30), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the issuance of an injunction against a CPA prohibiting him from taking a position on returns that failed the older Â6694(a) standard for nondisclosed positions.
The case is of interest because the panel gives a practical walkthrough of analyzing the level of support that existed for a position, as well as noting those items of support that Mr. Kapp wished to rely upon but which did not serve to help his cause.
The IRS has issued a revised ruling on the use of a net operating loss under the new rules Congress added in February. The new ruling, Revenue Ruling 2009-26, updates and liberalizes the guidance previously given in Revenue Ruling 2009-19 issued on March 16. The new guidance allows taxpayers to simply file a carryback for the appropriate number of years to make the election, but there are special due date rules you have to worry about.
The IRS has issued a revised ruling on the use of a net operating loss under the new rules Congress added in February. The new ruling, Revenue Ruling 2009-26, updates and liberalizes the guidance previously given in Revenue Ruling 2009-19 issued on March 16. The new guidance allows taxpayers to simply file a carryback for the appropriate number of years to make the election, but there are special due date rules you have to worry about.
The IRS has issued a revised ruling on the use of a net operating loss under the new rules Congress added in February. The new ruling, Revenue Ruling 2009-26, updates and liberalizes the guidance previously given in Revenue Ruling 2009-19 issued on March 16. The new guidance allows taxpayers to simply file a carryback for the appropriate number of years to make the election, but there are special due date rules you have to worry about.
The definition of an employee is this week's key issue--and we look at the matter in the case of Maimon v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-53. Dr. Maimon attempted to argue that he was not an employee of the professional corporation he worked in (and owned some shares in), but rather was an independent contractor. He was interested in holding this position because he had ended up personally paying over legal fees and, ultimately, a $1 million settlement, in a case involving his medical services.
The case is interesting because the Court held Dr. Maimon was not an officer and thus actually stepped through the common law tests for employment status. In the end the court found Dr. Maimon was an employee, but the case gives a good outline of the analysis to go through even in cases that aren't quite as "bad facts" as this one.
The definition of an employee is this week's key issue--and we look at the matter in the case of Maimon v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-53. Dr. Maimon attempted to argue that he was not an employee of the professional corporation he worked in (and owned some shares in), but rather was an independent contractor. He was interested in holding this position because he had ended up personally paying over legal fees and, ultimately, a $1 million settlement, in a case involving his medical services.
The case is interesting because the Court held Dr. Maimon was not an officer and thus actually stepped through the common law tests for employment status. In the end the court found Dr. Maimon was an employee, but the case gives a good outline of the analysis to go through even in cases that aren't quite as "bad facts" as this one.
The definition of an employee is this week's key issue--and we look at the matter in the case of Maimon v. Commissioner, TC Summary Opinion 2009-53. Dr. Maimon attempted to argue that he was not an employee of the professional corporation he worked in (and owned some shares in), but rather was an independent contractor. He was interested in holding this position because he had ended up personally paying over legal fees and, ultimately, a $1 million settlement, in a case involving his medical services.
The case is interesting because the Court held Dr. Maimon was not an officer and thus actually stepped through the common law tests for employment status. In the end the court found Dr. Maimon was an employee, but the case gives a good outline of the analysis to go through even in cases that aren't quite as "bad facts" as this one.
The Tax Court recently decided a pair of cases related to the innocent spouse provisions of §6015 and time limits on filing for relief. In the case of Mannella v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 10 the Tax Court held that even if the notice of intent to levy and rights under the innocent spouse provisions were never seen by the taxpayer, the two year period for relief under §6015(b) and (c) that is specifically imposed by statute begin to run.
However, the Court held in this case and the earlier case of Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 8 that the IRS regulation that imposed a similar two year time limit on equitable relief under §6015(f) was invalid, thus allowing the taxpayers to move forward with a claim for equitable relief.
The materials for this podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-04-19_6015.pdf .
The Tax Court recently decided a pair of cases related to the innocent spouse provisions of Â6015 and time limits on filing for relief. In the case of Mannella v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 10 the Tax Court held that even if the notice of intent to levy and rights under the innocent spouse provisions were never seen by the taxpayer, the two year period for relief under Â6015(b) and (c) that is specifically imposed by statute begin to run.
However, the Court held in this case and the earlier case of Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 8 that the IRS regulation that imposed a similar two year time limit on equitable relief under Â6015(f) was invalid, thus allowing the taxpayers to move forward with a claim for equitable relief.
The materials for this podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-04-19_6015.pdf .
The Tax Court recently decided a pair of cases related to the innocent spouse provisions of Â6015 and time limits on filing for relief. In the case of Mannella v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 10 the Tax Court held that even if the notice of intent to levy and rights under the innocent spouse provisions were never seen by the taxpayer, the two year period for relief under Â6015(b) and (c) that is specifically imposed by statute begin to run.
However, the Court held in this case and the earlier case of Lantz v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. No. 8 that the IRS regulation that imposed a similar two year time limit on equitable relief under Â6015(f) was invalid, thus allowing the taxpayers to move forward with a claim for equitable relief.
The materials for this podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-04-19_6015.pdf .
The IRS has shown recent interest in disputing whether real estate agents meet the requirements to be treated as real estate professionals that can use the rules of §409(c)(7) to treat rental real estate under the standard passive activity rules rather than having such items automatically treated as passive. The IRS position is that since the law refers to a "brokerage" trade or business and such individuals generally are not licensed as real estate brokers they cannot qualify.
In the case of Agarwal v. Commissioner, TC Summary 2009-29, the Tax Court did not agree with the IRS on that matter, instead allowing the taxpayer, who was a real estate agent who worked as an independent contractor under contract with a licensed brokerage firm, to qualify for §409(c)(7) treatment. The podcast also discusses a 2007 case where it was the IRS who was (successfully) arguing that you can't use state law licensing definitions when the issue was whether an bookkeeping and tax preparation firm that was not licensed as a CPA firm was a personal service corporation. In both of these cases, the Tax Court found that under the IRC we would look to the commonly understood definition of the terms, and that state licensing definitions did not control.
The IRS has shown recent interest in disputing whether real estate agents meet the requirements to be treated as real estate professionals that can use the rules of Â409(c)(7) to treat rental real estate under the standard passive activity rules rather than having such items automatically treated as passive. The IRS position is that since the law refers to a "brokerage" trade or business and such individuals generally are not licensed as real estate brokers they cannot qualify.
In the case of Agarwal v. Commissioner, TC Summary 2009-29, the Tax Court did not agree with the IRS on that matter, instead allowing the taxpayer, who was a real estate agent who worked as an independent contractor under contract with a licensed brokerage firm, to qualify for Â409(c)(7) treatment. The podcast also discusses a 2007 case where it was the IRS who was (successfully) arguing that you can't use state law licensing definitions when the issue was whether an bookkeeping and tax preparation firm that was not licensed as a CPA firm was a personal service corporation. In both of these cases, the Tax Court found that under the IRC we would look to the commonly understood definition of the terms, and that state licensing definitions did not control.
The IRS has shown recent interest in disputing whether real estate agents meet the requirements to be treated as real estate professionals that can use the rules of Â409(c)(7) to treat rental real estate under the standard passive activity rules rather than having such items automatically treated as passive. The IRS position is that since the law refers to a "brokerage" trade or business and such individuals generally are not licensed as real estate brokers they cannot qualify.
In the case of Agarwal v. Commissioner, TC Summary 2009-29, the Tax Court did not agree with the IRS on that matter, instead allowing the taxpayer, who was a real estate agent who worked as an independent contractor under contract with a licensed brokerage firm, to qualify for Â409(c)(7) treatment. The podcast also discusses a 2007 case where it was the IRS who was (successfully) arguing that you can't use state law licensing definitions when the issue was whether an bookkeeping and tax preparation firm that was not licensed as a CPA firm was a personal service corporation. In both of these cases, the Tax Court found that under the IRC we would look to the commonly understood definition of the terms, and that state licensing definitions did not control.
Can nonexistent cattle be overvalued? The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the Tax Court and other circuits, says it cannot be in the case of Keller v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 37-17 reversing on this issue the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2006-131.
Can nonexistent cattle be overvalued? The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the Tax Court and other circuits, says it cannot be in the case of Keller v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 37-17 reversing on this issue the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2006-131.
Can nonexistent cattle be overvalued? The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the Tax Court and other circuits, says it cannot be in the case of Keller v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 37-17 reversing on this issue the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2006-131.
This week we look at a case dealing with the trust fund recovery penalty under §6672. In the case of Richard A. Smith v. United States, 2009 TNT 30-6, CA10, (http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2009/02/07-4210.pdf) the Tenth Circuit refused to overturn the holding in the US District Court of Utah that Mr. Smith was a responsible person, even though he had no ownership interest in the entity in question. The case highlights the dangers for employees in accounting functions when the organization they work for begins to have cash flow problems, and payroll tax payments begin to be skipped.
This week we look at a case dealing with the trust fund recovery penalty under Â6672. In the case of Richard A. Smith v. United States, 2009 TNT 30-6, CA10, (http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2009/02/07-4210.pdf) the Tenth Circuit refused to overturn the holding in the US District Court of Utah that Mr. Smith was a responsible person, even though he had no ownership interest in the entity in question. The case highlights the dangers for employees in accounting functions when the organization they work for begins to have cash flow problems, and payroll tax payments begin to be skipped.
This week we look at a case dealing with the trust fund recovery penalty under Â6672. In the case of Richard A. Smith v. United States, 2009 TNT 30-6, CA10, (http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2009/02/07-4210.pdf) the Tenth Circuit refused to overturn the holding in the US District Court of Utah that Mr. Smith was a responsible person, even though he had no ownership interest in the entity in question. The case highlights the dangers for employees in accounting functions when the organization they work for begins to have cash flow problems, and payroll tax payments begin to be skipped.
The new American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 has a number of tax provisions, and this week's podcast looks at the small business net operating loss provisions of the Act. This provision will require action for some taxpayers within 60 days after the bill is signed into law, as well as giving us a "sliding" window for when we start using a net operating loss for the year we elect to have it apply to.
The new American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 has a number of tax provisions, and this week's podcast looks at the small business net operating loss provisions of the Act. This provision will require action for some taxpayers within 60 days after the bill is signed into law, as well as giving us a "sliding" window for when we start using a net operating loss for the year we elect to have it apply to.
The new American Recovery Reinvestment Act of 2009 has a number of tax provisions, and this week's podcast looks at the small business net operating loss provisions of the Act. This provision will require action for some taxpayers within 60 days after the bill is signed into law, as well as giving us a "sliding" window for when we start using a net operating loss for the year we elect to have it apply to.
If you are a business podcaster looking for more listeners, you've come to the right place. Update your RSS feeds using our specs and effectively syndicate your podcasts to AOL, ABC, CBS, Fox, MNG, Hearst and other leading media outlets. For more information, please email us at info@streetiq.com.
Are you creating a special series or covering an event? Submit links to your podcasts and photos along with captions and shownotes to buzz@streetiq.com.
