Business Strategies

Question: I have several long-term clients I’ve advised they didn’t qualify for ERC under the requirements. I’ve discovered over time that all three were sold by an ERC mill and filed amended tax returns to claim credits. What are the risks they will be audited and what are my responsibilities in representing them? Should I release them as clients because they didn’t listen to me? Answer: You know, the Employee Retention Credit (ERC) might sound like a pretty sweet deal, especially if your business took a hit during the pandemic. It's a tax break designed to help you out. But don’t be fooled. It's not as simple as it sounds. You need to know the ins and outs before you jump in. Some new kids on the block, a bunch of specialist firms, are offering to help businesses claim this ERC. Unless you’ve been trapped in a cave (or under a pile of tax files) you’ve probably seen the mail, heard the commercials, clicked the ads. They make it seem so easy, don’t they? Just let us take care of everything and ignore the rules. This is music to the ears of employers – especially if we’ve already told them based on the rules, they don’t qualify. We want our clients to know they gotta be careful. These mills may promise you the moon and the stars, but the reality is, there's a pretty tight rule book on how and when you can claim the ERC. Misunderstanding these rules could mean you lose out on a potential $26,000 tax credit per employee. Worse, you could be tricked into claiming money you're not actually entitled to and end up with a nasty surprise later. And when you factor in the steep fees charged by these fly-by-nights, often up to 30% of promised refunds - there is a real risk of loss should these businesses lose their claims.

Sometimes my mind is not the safest place to be. I mean face it, a few issues ago I wrote on best practices for doing Al Capone’s tax returns. But how did I even get started thinking about the taxability of a business dealing in black market organs? Well, it started when someone on social media (perhaps looking to supplement the income from their tax practice) asked if the gain on selling a kidney was taxable and, if so, what would be the seller’s basis in the organ? Then there was that time I was having dinner and adult beverages with some tax colleagues in Las Vegas, and we started talking about that old urban legend about waking up in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney. It was a fun night, and we all woke up with all of our kidneys and other organs in place. Nevertheless, I found myself wondering (and continuing to wonder) about the tax consequences of transacting in human body parts—one’s own or those illegally harvested from others. Turns out, there have been some court cases on the topic which means that the discussion is more than merely theoretical.

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…

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!

If you were to ask most taxpayers what they worry about when it comes to their tax returns, they might say an unexpectedly high tax liability or even a late penalty. Next to none will worry they are at risk for criminal prosecution. There is a sound reason for this. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021, taxpayers filed over 261,000,000 tax returns. During that same period, IRS Criminal Investigation (CI) initiated only 2,581 investigations—a paltry 0.00098% of all tax returns filed. While CI entanglements are not a common experience, there are still lessons to be learned from looking at how things can go awry. So what types of scenarios have resulted in criminal investigations by the IRS, and what can this teach the everyday taxpayer? First of all, working with an expert, such as a Certified Tax Planner, will help you better understand what is permissible by the IRS and reassure you that your returns are fraud-free. For a few tips on what not to do, read the cases below and review our key takeaways for each one.

My attitude toward 1099 compliance changed radically about fifteen years ago. The type of 1099 compliance I am talking about is for business to business services. If you are running a bank or a brokerage house, this will not be any help. I was a partner in a regional firm and frankly I never gave 1099 compliance much thought until I was called in to consult on an audit. Then I got this really scary wake-up call...

You can find new cannabis dispensaries or head shops on every corner in my neighborhood. But purchase and sale of marijuana has not been legalized on the federal level. What’s an ethical tax professional to do, when your client walks in with the news that they’ve started a cannabis business in your state? Read on to find out!

Tax season is in full effect, and it is likely that you are seeing and coping with the effects of poor administrative compliance on the part of your small business clients. Instead of bemoaning the fact that so many clients “don’t get it” use some of the time you’re spending on the return to prepare a list of administrative compliance items that the client needs to address. Then, set a (paid) planning appointment for later in the year to help the client address those items. If you do this, and if the client heeds your advice, next filing season more (if not always all) of the client’s administrative compliance will be in order by the time you start preparing their returns. It’s a win-win. Your client gets the opportunity to ensure that they are meeting administrative requirements that protect them from liability or penalties. You get cleaner paperwork (and peace of mind) moving into next filing season. Read on to learn more!