Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for February 17th, 2012

Yesterday, the IRS released its annual  “Dirty Dozen” ranking of tax scams, reminding taxpayers to use caution during tax season to protect themselves against a wide range of nefarious schemes. Narrowly missing the Top 12 this year: refusing to pay taxes for fear of supporting the “government killing machine” and the highly sophisticated “wallet inspector” scam.

All joking aside, tax scams are serious business. So if you’re gullible like my wife — who very nearly hired the Russian mob to move us from New Jersey to Aspen before I intervened — take heed of the following Dirty Dozen tax scams:

Identity Theft

 An IRS notice informing a taxpayer that more than one return was filed in the taxpayer’s name or that the taxpayer received wages from an unknown employer may be the first tip off the individual receives that he or she has been victimized. 

Anyone who believes his or her personal information has been stolen and used for tax purposes should immediately contact the IRS Identity Protection Specialized Unit.  For more information, visit the special identity theft page at www.IRS.gov/identitytheft

Phishing

Phishing is a scam typically carried out with the help of unsolicited email or a fake website that poses as a legitimate site to lure in potential victims and prompt them to provide valuable personal and financial information. Armed with this information, a criminal can commit identity theft or financial theft.

It is important to keep in mind the IRS does not initiate contact with taxpayers by email to request personal or financial information.  This includes any type of electronic communication, such as text messages and social media channels.  The IRS has information that can help you protect yourself from email scams.

Return Preparer Fraud

Questionable return preparers have been known to skim off their clients’ refunds, charge inflated fees for return preparation services and attract new clients by promising guaranteed or inflated refunds. Taxpayers should choose carefully when hiring a tax preparer. Federal courts have issued hundreds of injunctions ordering individuals to cease preparing returns, and the Department of Justice has pending complaints against many others.

Hiding Income Offshore

While there are legitimate reasons for maintaining financial accounts abroad, there are reporting requirements that need to be fulfilled. U.S. taxpayers who maintain such accounts and who do not comply with reporting and disclosure requirements are breaking the law and risk significant penalties and fines, as well as the possibility of criminal prosecution.
 

“Free Money” from the IRS & Tax Scams Involving Social Security

Flyers and advertisements for free money from the IRS, suggesting that the taxpayer can file a tax return with little or no documentation, have been appearing in community churches around the country.

Scammers prey on low income individuals and the elderly. They build false hopes and charge people good money for bad advice. In the end, the victims discover their claims are rejected. Meanwhile, the promoters are long gone. The IRS warns all taxpayers to remain vigilant.

False/Inflated Income and Expenses

Including income that was never earned, either as wages or as self-employment income in order to maximize refundable credits, is another popular scam. Claiming income you did not earn or expenses you did not pay in order to secure larger refundable credits such as the Earned Income Tax Credit could have serious repercussions.  This could result in repaying the erroneous refunds, including interest and penalties, and in some cases, even prosecution. 

False Form 1099 Refund Claims

In this ongoing scam, the perpetrator files a fake information return, such as a Form 1099 Original Issue Discount (OID), to justify a false refund claim on a corresponding tax return. In some cases, individuals have made refund claims based on the bogus theory that the federal government maintains secret accounts for U.S. citizens and that taxpayers can gain access to the accounts by issuing 1099-OID forms to the IRS.

Frivolous Arguments

Promoters of frivolous schemes encourage taxpayers to make unreasonable and outlandish claims to avoid paying the taxes they owe. The IRS has a list of frivolous tax arguments that taxpayers should avoid. These arguments are false and have been thrown out of court. While taxpayers have the right to contest their tax liabilities in court, no one has the right to disobey the law.

Falsely Claiming Zero Wages

Filing a phony information return is an illegal way to lower the amount of taxes an individual owes. Typically, a Form 4852 (Substitute Form W-2) or a “corrected” Form 1099 is used as a way to improperly reduce taxable income to zero. The taxpayer may also submit a statement rebutting wages and taxes reported by a payer to the IRS.

Abuse of Charitable Organizations and Deductions

IRS examiners continue to uncover the intentional abuse of 501(c)(3) organizations, including arrangements that improperly shield income or assets from taxation and attempts by donors to maintain control over donated assets or the income from donated property.

Disguised Corporate Ownership

Third parties are improperly used to request employer identification numbers and form corporations that obscure the true ownership of the business.

These entities can be used to underreport income, claim fictitious deductions, avoid filing tax returns, participate in listed transactions and facilitate money laundering, and financial crimes. The IRS is working with state authorities to identify these entities and bring the owners into compliance with the law.

Misuse of Trusts

For years, unscrupulous promoters have urged taxpayers to transfer assets into trusts. While there are legitimate uses of trusts in tax and estate planning, some highly questionable transactions promise reduction of income subject to tax, deductions for personal expenses and reduced estate or gift taxes. Such trusts rarely deliver the tax benefits promised and are used primarily as a means of avoiding income tax liability and hiding assets from creditors, including the IRS.

Read Full Post »

[Ed Note: This is the second of what will be a recurring series of posts by WS+B Tax Partner Steve Talkowsky addressing the seminal tax cases in our country's tax history. Why do something like this?

Because unless you happen to be this chick, the tax law is considerably older than you are. As a result, no matter how diligent and dutiful you may be in absorbing current events, the reality is that much of the current law was established long before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eyes.

To speed up your learning curve, Mr. Talkowsky will stop by from time to time to reintroduce and dissect those landmark decisions that have had a far-reaching impact on the tax law as we know it.

Next up: The Supreme Court's decision in Duberstein v. Commissioner. Now on to Steve…]

How do you know when you have received — or given — a gift?  If it’s not a gift then what is it?  Good questions – both of which were answered by the Supreme Court fifty years ago in  Commissioner v. Duberstein.

Facts:

Mr. Berman was president of Mohawk Metal Corporation (Mohawk). Mr. Duberstein was president of the Duberstein Iron & Metal Company. They would often talk on the phone and give each other names of potential customers. After receiving some particularly helpful information, Berman decided to give Duberstein a car, and not just any car – a Caddy!  

Although Duberstein initially said he did not need the car as he already had one, he eventually accepted it (duh!). Mohawk later deducted the value of the car as a business expense, but Duberstein did not include the value of the Cadillac in his gross income, leaving the IRS in the position of being whipsawed.  

As a result, the IRS challenged Duberstein’s position, arguing that the car was compensation for services. The Tax Court agreed, looking to Berman’s intent in giving the car to Duberstein:

The record is significantly barren of evidence revealing any intention on the part of the payor to make a gift. The payment was made by a corporation, and it entered the payment on its books as a “finder’s fee.” The corporation not only claimed the amount as a business expense on its Federal income tax return, but filed an information return (form 1099) as required…Such facts tend to negate any donative intent of the payor.

Upon appeal, however, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with the Tax Court, holding the car to represent a nontaxable gift. In support of its decision, the Sixth Circuit disregarded the subsequent treatment of the car as a business gift by Berman, and focused instead on what they believed was Berman’s initial intent: to give a gift to a non-employee:

The Tax Court inferred lack of donative intent on the part of Berman because his corporation took the value of the car as a business expense, classifying it as a “finder’s fee”. If, in fact, there was donative intent at the time of the event involved, a subsequent change of mind by the donor at income tax time cannot change the character of what was, in fact, a gift at the time it was made.

Based on the lower court’s inability to reach a consensus, the Supreme Court was left with the unenviable task of defining precisely what constitutes a “gift.”

In performing its analysis, the Supreme Court — while acknowledging that there is no “bright line” test as to what constitutes a gift for taxation purposes — agreed with the Tax Court that the critical consideration is the transferor’s intent.

In holding that the car represented taxble compensation for services, the court famously defined a gift as proceeding from a “detached and disinterested generosity,”  and as being given out of affection, respect, admiration, charity or like impulses. Compensatory payments, on the other hand, are payments given as an “involved and intensely interested” act.

Because of the pre-existing relationship between Mohawk and Duberstein, the Supreme Court believed that the transfer by Berman of  the car to Duberstein was not made out of a “detached and disinterested generosity,” but rather to compensate him for past services or induce him to provide future services.

[Ed note: Duberstein established the requirement that a gift be made with "donative intent,"  and this test has been used for the past half-century to differentiate nontaxable gifts from compenstatory transfers. The principles established in Dubserstein have been applied to everything from determining whether a parent's payment to his child's school can qualify as a charitable contribution to whether a cancellation of debt creates taxable income to the debtor or is instead treated as a gift.]

Read Full Post »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 649 other followers