Business Strategies

It has never been harder to do quality tax research than at any time in my 43-year career in tax accounting. In the 1980s, when I was part-time in the industry, there was no internet. Since I was part-time, I ordered Publications 1132, 17, and 334. The rest I found at the library. A few hearty souls might even remember when the post office had stacks of tax forms for the public. Once I went full-time for the 1989 tax season I needed more resources. CCH was my tool of choice. I still used IRS publications and the library. My handy reference guide of choice was, and still is, the QuickFinder. I never used TaxBook much, but it is another good resource for general answers. Then came the internet. The promise was that we would have the world at our fingertips. And for the large part we did, only we forgot some things we would rather keep at an arm’s length. The internet slowly allowed us to replace rooms in our office filled with tax guides and forms with online resources. Law offices and accounting firms often wrote tax articles on narrow tax subjects. Research was easier than ever. Then came AI.

If you spend any time in the world of cross-border taxes, you start to notice a pattern: the hardest problems usually begin with a deceptively simple question—who gets to tax you? And the answer is rarely as simple as “the country where I live.” That’s because tax systems don’t rely on just one concept to decide who belongs in their net. They use citizenship, residency, and domicile. These terms sound similar, and people often use them interchangeably in casual conversation, but in tax law they mean very different things. For globally mobile individuals, understanding the difference matters. You can be a U.S. citizen, a tax resident of another country, and still have your long-term home base tied to a different jurisdiction altogether. Each label can trigger different tax consequences, different filing obligations, and different planning opportunities.

The simplest way to reduce your taxable income from an S corporation is to take some of the gross receipts directly into your personal account without running them through the corporate books. Don’t mention this to your tax preparer and make sure they don’t find out. If you get caught by the IRS, though, hire an expert to explain why it is your preparer’s fault. This plan did not work all that well for a couple, both physicians, who were running two medical family medical clinics through an S Corporation called MedExpress. They ended up being liable for the fraud penalty which has the collateral effect of extending the statute of limitations indefinitely. At 75% the fraud penalty is as bad as it can get without losing your liberty.

Follow-up isn’t nagging. Follow-up is leadership. It’s how we stay relevant, reduce decision friction, and serve prospects who genuinely need help but are overwhelmed, distracted, or uncertain. And if we’re honest, it’s also where a lot of revenue is quietly lost—not because people say “no,” but because they drift. There’s an old saying: the riches are in the follow-up. In public accounting, that’s not hype. It’s math.

Many multinational groups find that foreign-source dividends and other income earned by domestic affiliates are fully or partially subject to state income taxation, even where the federal system provides an exemption. This state-level “leakage” can be material – particularly in high-tax jurisdictions – and is often overlooked because the income appears sheltered at the federal level. For groups with predominantly foreign operations, a starting structure or a restructuring that causes one or more domestic affiliates to qualify as an “80/20 company” can substantially reduce or eliminate state taxation on that income.

CPAs routinely help clients improve tax efficiency, yet one of the most consequential advisory questions is whether the business itself could remain operational after a significant uninsured loss. Tax planning improves after-tax cash flow and strengthens annual performance, but continuity planning determines whether the enterprise can withstand disruption long enough to recover. When an adverse event threatens operations, liquidity and stability often matter more than marginal tax savings. For that reason, the discussion of risk funding deserves to sit alongside traditional tax strategy in any comprehensive advisory relationship.

A lot of client meetings still start with the same assumptions: W-2 in a U.S. state, mortgage nearby, a 401(k), maybe some RSUs, and a college-savings plan. Yet many of those “simple” clients now own an apartment in another country, freelance for a foreign company, or have parents wiring money from overseas. The tax code does not see those details as background color; it treats them as organizing facts. This is where citizenship, residency, and domicile quietly step onto center stage. For planners, the challenge is not memorizing every cross-border rule. It is knowing when a client is no longer “just domestic” and shifting your planning framework before you stumble into penalties, double taxation, or blown opportunities.

Recent developments in the Section 183 (Hobby loss) area have not led me to change my basic conclusions. Taxpayers who have a sincere objective of ultimately making a profit should not hesitate to claim losses from the underlying activities. That is so even if you believe that profits are improbable. It is critical that they meet the standard of behaving in a businesslike manner. The other regulatory factors should not be ignored, but often there is not that much you can do about them. Reilly’s 18th Law of Tax Planning – Honest objective trumps realistic expectation.