Guest Article

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.

Income shifting strategies address taxation at its most fundamental level by directing income to taxpayers in lower brackets or with offsetting deductions. Unlike many tax strategies that merely time recognition or enhance deductions, effective income shifting can permanently reduce the tax burden on a given dollar of income—often creating tax savings that compound year after year. In this article, we'll explore systematic approaches to income shifting that create extraordinary value for clients while maintaining impeccable compliance.

We’ve all said it: “Once busy season ends, we’ll fix this.” But the pressure never leaves, it just shifts. Extensions, quarter-end, planning season, and year-end come one after another. When a firm wants to grow, the real challenge is not, “Can we get more clients?” but, “Can we deliver quality service at scale without overburdening our team or diminishing client experience?” This is the true capacity problem behind growth.

Many taxpayers have lived with a frustrating mismatch since the Section 163(j) limitation tightened after 2021 – the business may generate plenty of cash, yet its interest deductions are limited because adjusted taxable income (“ATI”) is too low, e.g., due to capex. The 2025 restoration of depreciation and amortization addbacks makes ATI planning relevant again, especially for groups that own valuable intangible property (“IP”), and the choice of legal entity to house group IP may have very different tax consequences as discussed in this article.

In recognition of the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, let’s review 250 years of tax history. Our nation’s tax systems have evolved over two and a half centuries as ways of doing business and living have changed. Also, expectations of services the public wants and needs from the government have grown, resulting in tax changes to generate increasing amounts of tax revenue. Along the way, lawmakers have considered principles of simplification, equity, fairness, economic growth and effective tax administration that have shaped our tax laws. This article offers questions and answers to cover a range of interesting aspects of our federal tax history.

Two recent Tax Court opinions , both about the same transaction, reinforce the importance of a contemporaneous written acknowledgement (CWA) to solidify charitable contributions. It is a good illustration of Reilly’s Fourth Law of Tax Planning – Execution isn’t everything, but it’s a lot.

Dealing with deficiency and restitution in a tax evasion case is a minefield, but there's a good example of how it's done this month. There's architecture, both additional research credits for buildings and software in discovery. There are the fine points of the innocent spouse checklist, Rev. Proc. 2013-34. Two common deductions, home office and hobby losses, get reexamined. Cryptocurrency staking is taxed. A brilliant move earns a much-belated refund of an enhanced accuracy penalty. And the scoresheet in the Boechler jurisdiction-vs-claim-processing gets a new entry.

The Internal Revenue Service has made no secret of its increased scrutiny of captive insurance arrangements, particularly those involving the small insurance company election. For taxpayers and their advisors, this has created understandable concern and, in some cases, hesitation about whether captive insurance remains a viable risk management and tax planning tool. Yet heightened scrutiny does not mean prohibition. The Internal Revenue Code continues to recognize captive insurance, Congress has refined it, and courts evaluate it based on well-established insurance principles. The real issue is not whether captives are allowed, but whether a specific taxpayer has a legitimate business need for insurance, has structured the arrangement properly, and has implemented it in a manner consistent with both tax law and insurance fundamentals. Understanding where scrutiny arises, how elections function, and what separates compliant captives from problematic ones is critical for CPAs advising closely held businesses today.