Podcasts about commissioner tc memo

Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources.  This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal.  In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one).  Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast is about taxpayer advice and its reliability and its credibility in court. Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources. This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal. In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one). Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast is about taxpayer advice and its reliability and its credibility in court. Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources. This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal. In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one). Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast is about taxpayer advice and its reliability and its credibility in court. Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources. This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal. In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one). Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast is about taxpayer advice and its reliability and its credibility in court. Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources. This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal. In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one). Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast is about taxpayer advice and its reliability and its credibility in court. Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources. This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal. In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one). Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This PodCast is about taxpayer advice and its reliability and its credibility in court. Taxpayers get their advice from a lot of sources, and we often end up having to defend our own advice against other sources. This week we have two cases that show that all advice is not created equal. In the case of Lehrer v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-156) a taxpayer learned the hard way that selecting a preparer predominantly on which one computes the lowest tax is not necessarily the best way to end up well advised.And the case of Diem v. Commissioner (TC Summary 2006-121) is useful for those clients that will try and check your advice by calling the IRS for an answer and then reporting the IRS's answer to you (so, you know, you don't have to do any work on that one). Mr. Diem was clobbered when it turned out an IRS employee's assurance that the program offered by his employer would be treated just like the workers compensation style claim he was giving up for tax purposes turned out not to be so.The materials for this week's presentation are found at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-03_Trust.pdf . This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

A few weeks ago (back in April) we looked at the case of Ruckreigel where a taxpayer lost an IRS challenge on whether a debt was truly from the shareholders to the corporation due to a failure to follow the necessary formalities.  This week, the taxpayers strike back with a taxpayer victory in the case of Miller v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-125) where the IRS fails in its attempt to reclassify debt that followed the proper form but which the IRS attempted to claim was really debt from the bank to the corporation.The taxpayer achieved victory on this point and the issue of whether the taxpayer was truly at risk as defined in Section 465, even though when all was said and done the taxpayer got out of all liability as the debt was actually paid by other investors who had guaranteed the entire loan structure.  This is an interesting case in showing the extreme importance of following proper form because, from an economic standpoint, the taxpayers in Ruckreigel seem to have much real exposure to potential loss than Mr. Miller actually ended up having, but he got his deduction.The materials can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-06-23_S_Debt.pdf.This podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc., on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

This Podcast is about the importance of following proper form in corporate debt situations. A few weeks ago (back in April) we looked at the case of Ruckreigel where a taxpayer lost an IRS challenge on whether a debt was truly from the shareholders to the corporation due to a failure to follow the necessary formalities. This week, the taxpayers strike back with a taxpayer victory in the case of Miller v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-125) where the IRS fails in its attempt to reclassify debt that followed the proper form but which the IRS attempted to claim was really debt from the bank to the corporation.The taxpayer achieved victory on this point and the issue of whether the taxpayer was truly at risk as defined in Section 465, even though when all was said and done the taxpayer got out of all liability as the debt was actually paid by other investors who had guaranteed the entire loan structure. This is an interesting case in showing the extreme importance of following proper form because, from an economic standpoint, the taxpayers in Ruckreigel seem to have much real exposure to potential loss than Mr. Miller actually ended up having, but he got his deduction.The materials can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-06-23_S_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This Podcast is about the importance of following proper form in corporate debt situations. A few weeks ago (back in April) we looked at the case of Ruckreigel where a taxpayer lost an IRS challenge on whether a debt was truly from the shareholders to the corporation due to a failure to follow the necessary formalities. This week, the taxpayers strike back with a taxpayer victory in the case of Miller v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-125) where the IRS fails in its attempt to reclassify debt that followed the proper form but which the IRS attempted to claim was really debt from the bank to the corporation.The taxpayer achieved victory on this point and the issue of whether the taxpayer was truly at risk as defined in Section 465, even though when all was said and done the taxpayer got out of all liability as the debt was actually paid by other investors who had guaranteed the entire loan structure. This is an interesting case in showing the extreme importance of following proper form because, from an economic standpoint, the taxpayers in Ruckreigel seem to have much real exposure to potential loss than Mr. Miller actually ended up having, but he got his deduction.The materials can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-06-23_S_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This Podcast is about the importance of following proper form in corporate debt situations. A few weeks ago (back in April) we looked at the case of Ruckreigel where a taxpayer lost an IRS challenge on whether a debt was truly from the shareholders to the corporation due to a failure to follow the necessary formalities. This week, the taxpayers strike back with a taxpayer victory in the case of Miller v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2006-125) where the IRS fails in its attempt to reclassify debt that followed the proper form but which the IRS attempted to claim was really debt from the bank to the corporation.The taxpayer achieved victory on this point and the issue of whether the taxpayer was truly at risk as defined in Section 465, even though when all was said and done the taxpayer got out of all liability as the debt was actually paid by other investors who had guaranteed the entire loan structure. This is an interesting case in showing the extreme importance of following proper form because, from an economic standpoint, the taxpayers in Ruckreigel seem to have much real exposure to potential loss than Mr. Miller actually ended up having, but he got his deduction.The materials can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-06-23_S_Debt.pdf. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This week we look at two Tax Court opinions released on the same day that both dealt with whether a transaction represented a loan to the taxpayer or was income. The cases are Teymourian v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2005-232) and Karns Prime and Fancy Food, Ltd. (TC Memo 2005-233). The results may initially appear to be at odds with most tax professional's expectation based on the fact that in the case where the taxpayer prevailed, the loan in question was with his closely held corporation and poorly documented, while in the case where the IRS prevailed the purported loan was from an unrelated third party and clearly documented as a loan. I also briefly discuss the IRS's release of new proposed regulations to explain Section 409A that Congress put into the law last October. If your client either participates in a nonqualified plan or sponsors one, you should review these new proposed regulations, which modify the original guidance the IRS provided in Notice 2005-1. Please post comments here on ezollars.libsyn.com by clicking on the comment line just below the description.

This Podcast considers two Tax Court opinions released on the same day that both dealt with whether a transaction represented a loan to the taxpayer or was income. The cases are Teymourian v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2005-232) and Karns Prime and Fancy Food, Ltd. (TC Memo 2005-233). The results may initially appear to be at odds with most tax professional's expectation based on the fact that in the case where the taxpayer prevailed, the loan in question was with his closely held corporation and poorly documented, while in the case where the IRS prevailed the purported loan was from an unrelated third party and clearly documented as a loan. Ed Zollars briefly discusses the IRS's release of new proposed regulations to explain Section 409A that Congress put into the law last October. If your client either participates in a nonqualified plan or sponsors one, you should review these new proposed regulations, which modify the original guidance the IRS provided in Notice 2005-1. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com

This Podcast considers two Tax Court opinions released on the same day that both dealt with whether a transaction represented a loan to the taxpayer or was income. The cases are Teymourian v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2005-232) and Karns Prime and Fancy Food, Ltd. (TC Memo 2005-233). The results may initially appear to be at odds with most tax professional's expectation based on the fact that in the case where the taxpayer prevailed, the loan in question was with his closely held corporation and poorly documented, while in the case where the IRS prevailed the purported loan was from an unrelated third party and clearly documented as a loan. Ed Zollars briefly discusses the IRS's release of new proposed regulations to explain Section 409A that Congress put into the law last October. If your client either participates in a nonqualified plan or sponsors one, you should review these new proposed regulations, which modify the original guidance the IRS provided in Notice 2005-1. This Podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, Inc. at http://www.leimbergservices.com Please visit our software, books, and PowerPoint Presentations site at http://www.leimberg.com