"I knew he was a crook when I married him." Come again? And you still married him? That's what I said in my head as it took every muscle in my face to keep my forehead from scowling. But instead, I said, "What do you mean?" "We always had good money and nice things, but we never paid taxes. I always owed when I was single. But when we got married, I stopped working and we never owed." Let me take a moment to rewind and get you up to speed. This taxpayer, let's call her Mrs. Bonnie for the purposes of this story, reached out because she needed to file last year's tax return. She was recently widowed, and her husband typically handled the tax filing. So, she was already feeling overwhelmed and lost when it happened. She went to the mailbox and pulled out mail from the IRS. It was a CP3219A , notifying her that credits claimed on a previous tax return were being disallowed by the IRS. Not only did she owe taxes, but she also owed accuracy related penalties. She only had 90 days to respond if she disagreed and didn't know what to do. When she reached out to me, she inquired about whether I could review previous year returns. Mrs. Bonnie wanted to make sure that they were "done right". This isn't a strange request. I told her that I would review the prior year to have a baseline and if I saw anything fishy, I'd bring it to her attention and perhaps look at another year. I didn't even make it to the signatures before the fishiness leaped off the page. I set up a meeting with her via Zoom to review my findings. As I begin to ask about some of the credits claimed and her husband's business her answers did not match what was on the return. That's when she let me know that she knew her husband, Mr. Clyde, was a crook when she married him. Mrs. Bonnie didn't know much about taxes, but she did a bit of research. She read about something called Innocent Spouse Relief and thought she may be eligible. Let's look at what Innocent Spouse Relief is and why Mrs. Bonnie was not eligible, but your client may be.

A recently filed lawsuit against CohnReznick opens a window into a niche form of tax practice – compliance and planning around the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit . The case highlights a current controversy between investors seeking returns and not-for-profits seeking to insure continued affordability and their own interests to be just a bit cynical. We get to discuss some obscure tax issues and reflect on the question of who it is that is actually your client.

Here are a few reminders on claiming losses from property transactions with a focus on an informal ruling the IRS issued in January 2023 to help explain losses from certain cryptocurrency transactions. This article focuses not only on what CCA 202302011 provides, but also what it doesn’t cover regarding possible losses from cryptocurrency and digital asset transactions. Click here to continue reading…

The story of Scott M. Hoensheid’s charitable planning gone awry as related by Judge Joseph W. Nega of the United States Tax Court is an interesting one. Click here to continue reading…

Beanie babies, Pokémon cards, POGs, and digital pictures of monkeys on the internet, one of these things is not like the others. All these are items that people may collect or at least have collected in the past. Maybe they were just collecting for fun, or perhaps they acquired in hopes of selling their items in the future for a profit. However, the IRS has highlighted only one of the items on this list as potentially being a collectible. A non-fungible token (NFT) “is a unique digital identifier that is recorded using distributed ledger technology and may be used to certify authenticity and ownership of an associated right or asset. Ownership of an NFT may provide the holder a right with respect to a digital file (such as a digital image).” NFTs run the gamut from bored apes (computer generated pictures of monkeys that sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to be confused with board apes, which are monkey pictures on sandwich and surf boards and do not sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars) to Ruish Bronzelight (a DeFi Kingdoms online video game Warrior Wizard we met in “Tax Planning for DeFi Based Games”), and even event tickets (especially popular with crypto conferences). There is even at least one CPA who sells access to his tax practice via NFT. Click here to continue reading…

This month I've decided to change format. I'm grouping Tax Court thumbnails by category. Not every reader deals with every issue. But coverage is still useful even where only a few specialize. Click here to read the latest happenings!

IRC § 1031 exchanges have the ability to confer substantial financial benefits to taxpayers. Although taxpayers may use § 1031 to place themselves in a superior economic position, taxpayers may not exploit this section in an abusive manner. Taxpayers can use exchanges to give themselves different types of benefits, but one of the primary benefits is the deferral of federal income tax. When conducted correctly, 1031 exchanges are regarded as a form of legitimate tax avoidance. One of the main issues involved with these transactions is determining the boundaries between abusive tax avoidance and non-abusive tax avoidance. In the context of “related party exchanges” – i.e. those transactions which involve subsection 1031(f) – this issue shows up in a relatively complex fashion, because the related party rules are not well understood by most practitioners. Furthermore, determining abusive tax avoidance with related party exchanges is difficult because of the scarcity of case law. Based on the case law which we have, and on the other authoritative references, we can put together a reasonable overview of the risks of related party exchanges. This overview should prove useful when providing expert counsel to taxpayers seeking to conduct this type of transaction. For direct exchanges, the 2-year ownership rule found in 1031(f)(1)(C) should be used as the dominant source of guidance. For “indirect exchanges,” taxpayers must be aware of the higher levels of risk involved, as there is a greater possibility of abusive tax avoidance. To read more click here!

At its peak, Alphonse (Al) Capone’s criminal empire was worth approximately $1.3 billion when adjusted for inflation. On June 5, 1931, Capone was indicted on multiple counts of income tax evasion. At the time the maximum penalty for his offenses was 32 years in jail and $80,000 in fines (almost $1.6M in inflation adjusted dollars). The prosecution in Capone’s case “documented Capone's lavish spending, evidence of a colossal income. The government also submitted proof that Capone was aware of his obligation to pay federal income tax but failed to do so." Click here to keep reading about this fascinating case…