Not Every Client Is a Keeper: When Saying Goodbye Protects Your Practice

Business Strategies

Bad chemistry with one client can disrupt the flow with everyone. That one client who doesn’t follow your processes and messes up the workflow during tax season. The client who never turns things in on time but then wants results from you immediately when they do. These things affect how you interact and work with your other clients as well. As the firm owner we should do whatever we can to protect good chemistry within our business. As a tax advisor the people we work with become our family. We help them make decisions that impact them and their families. That is why firing clients can be a delicate matter when you are doing the firing.

Subscribe to Read the rest of the article

Think Outside the Tax Box provides tax reduction strategies along with practical implementation advice in order to reduce your clients’ federal tax bill with ease.

Already have an account? Sign in

CURRENT EDITION

Tackling Taxes On an Inherited HSA

Keith Schroeder, EA

The Health Savings Account (HSA) is a first line of defense tax strategy. Contributions are deductible and earnings are tax-free if used for qualified medical expenses. There are numerous features to the HSA that secure maximum tax benefits. Structured properly, an HSA can provide serious tax-free money to beneficiaries as well as the account holder. Before we review the implications of inheriting an HSA, let’s review some of the powerful features an HSA has that increases the value of the account.

Kadau v. Commissioner and the Line Between Effective and Broken Captives

Sean King, JD, CPA, MAcc

Captive insurance remains one of the most closely examined tax planning strategies in use today, not because it is inherently flawed, but because small missteps can carry outsized consequences. Many taxpayers assume that careful formation and proper documentation are enough to protect the intended tax outcome. A recent Tax Court decision, Kadau v. Commissioner, serves as a reminder that those assumptions deserve closer scrutiny. The court’s analysis did not hinge on whether captive insurance can work, but on how a specific arrangement actually functioned in practice. For tax professionals advising clients who rely on micro-captives, the case raises important questions about where structures tend to break down, why some arrangements attract IRS attention while others do not, and what really separates a defensible captive from one that invites challenge.