Podcasts about tc memo

We are sure there are many parts of the tax code that you don’t like, particularly the parts where you have to keep tax records. In this episode we look at a tax court case NHuss Trust v Commr., TC Memo 2005-236. This case looks at a married couple that sold their home and claimed no taxable gain because of the $286,070 in improvements to the home. During its audit, the IRS found only $56,284 in improvements to the home since its purchase. The court upped that amount to $82,039, creating $101,907 in taxable capital gains.  

Can nonexistent cattle be overvalued?  The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the Tax Court and other circuits, says it cannot be in the case of Keller v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 37-17 reversing on this issue the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2006-131.The materials for this podcast can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-03-02_Cattle.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Services at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast is about valuation - and overvaluation. Can nonexistent cattle be overvalued? Certainly not a mooo t point! The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing with the Tax Court and other circuits, says it cannot be in the case of Keller v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 37-17 reversing on this issue the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2006-131. The materials for this podcast can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-03-02_Cattle.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 I look at a case involving a Northwest Airlines mechanic who was laid off and ended up using his "bumping" rights in other cities while hoping to return to his original home base.  The question of whether the taxpayer could deduct the expenses of working in the various locations is considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the Tax Court decided no deduction was allowed in the case of Wilbert v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 12-12, CA7, affirming TC Memo 2007-152.The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-01-25_TaxHome.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast involves a Northwest Airlines mechanic who was laid off and ended up using his "bumping" rights in other cities while hoping to return to his original home base. The question of whether the taxpayer could deduct the expenses of working in the various locations is considered by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after the Tax Court decided no deduction was allowed in the case of Wilbert v. Commissioner, 2009 TNT 12-12, CA7, affirming TC Memo 2007-152. The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2009-01-25_TaxHome.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

Medical expenses were the issue this week in the case of Magdalin v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-293.  In this case the taxpayer had paid expenses for obtaining eggs and the services of a surrogate mother, and argued that these expenses should be treated as deductible medical expenses, pointing to the IRS's 2003 private letter ruling (PLR 200318017) that allowed a woman the expenses related to in vitro fertilizaiton, including expenses paid for an egg donor.  The IRS (and the Tax Court) didn't find the situations to be comparable and denied the deduction--but it gives us a chance to look at the rules around §213.The materials are at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-12-28_Medical.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This Podcast is about the deduction of Medical expenses and the case of Magdalin v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-293. In this case the taxpayer had paid expenses for obtaining eggs and the services of a surrogate mother, and argued that these expenses should be treated as deductible medical expenses, pointing to the IRS's 2003 private letter ruling (PLR 200318017) that allowed a woman the expenses related to in vitro fertilizaiton, including expenses paid for an egg donor. The IRS (and the Tax Court) didn't find the situations to be comparable and denied the deduction. The case gives us a chance to look at the rules around "213. The materials are at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-12-28_Medical.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

After a bit of a break while I was out speaking in the past couple of weeks in Nevada, California, Ohio and Virginia we return to a Thanksgiving Day podcast dealing with self-employment taxes and employee status.  We look at the Tax Court's ruling in McWhorter v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-263 where a taxpayer argued he was not subject to self-employment tax because he should have been treated as an employee.The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-11-27_Self_Employed.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast deals with self-employment taxes and employee status and focuses on the Tax Court's ruling in McWhorter v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-263 where a taxpayer argued he was not subject to self-employment tax because he should have been treated as an employee. The materials can be downloaded at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-11-27_Self_Employed.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 continues with issues related to S Corporation debt and the many ways to end up not being able to use debts to deduct losses flowing through. This Podcast focuses on Tax Court's opinion in the case of Russell v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-246. The materials for the podcast can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-11-03_SDebt.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 continues with issues related to S Corporation debt and the many ways to end up not being able to use debts to deduct losses flowing through. This Podcast focuses on Tax Court's opinion in the case of Russell v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-246. The materials for the podcast can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-11-03_SDebt.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

We continue with issues related to S Corporation debt and the many ways to end up not being able to use debts to deduct losses flowing through.  This week we look at the Tax Court's opinion in the case of Russell v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-246.The materials for the podcast can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-11-03_SDebt.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This is a "travel" podcast of sorts this week--the materials were prepared on a Southwest Airlines 737 flying from Phoenix to Baltimore, and recorded in the Hotel Roanoke in Roanoke, Virginia.  This week's topic doesn't deal with any of that--rather it deals with the issue of a CPA that got "creative" in planning with himself and his clients, and in his case he finds the Tax Court isn't amused.  The case is Baisden v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-215 where a CPA attempted to get around the self-employment tax by paying "royalties" from his sole proprietorship to himself.  The case doesn't deal with that issue (he had conceded that matter by then) but rather deals with whether he was subject to the fraud penalty.The materials are available for download at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-22_Fraud.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast deals with the issue of a CPA that got 'creative' in planning with himself and his clients, and in his case he finds the Tax Court isn't amused. The case is Baisden v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-215 where a CPA attempted to get around the self-employment tax by paying 'royalties' from his sole proprietorship to himself. The case doesn't deal with that issue (he had conceded that matter by then) but rather deals with whether he was subject to the fraud penalty. The materials are available for download at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-22_Fraud.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

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals this week affirmed the Tax Court's decision in the case of Johanson and Melzig v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-105 involving alimony.  In its original decision, the Tax Court expressed exasperation at having to yet again decide an issue the parties could have resolved in the decree itself-whether the payments would cease on the death of the recipient spouse as required by §71(b) for the payments to be treated as alimony.  Yet again, the recipient claimed the payments would not and the payor claimed they would, and the Tax Court had to then divine how a California state court would have ruled under California law.The materials can be found at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-08_Alimony.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast deals with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the Tax Court's decision in the case of Johanson and Melzig v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-105 involving alimony. In its original decision, the Tax Court expressed exasperation at having to yet again decide an issue the parties could have resolved in the decree itself-whether the payments would cease on the death of the recipient spouse as required by 71(b) for the payments to be treated as alimony. Yet again, the recipient claimed the payments would not and the payor claimed they would, and the Tax Court had to then divine how a California state court would have ruled under California law. The materials can be found at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-08_Alimony.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

In the past year we've talked a lot about the preparer standards and tax return positions.  This week, in the case of Wadsworth v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-171, we see a real world situation where a tax professional decided a position was not one that he could accept and what happened when the client decided to find another person who would take the requested position.  As you might expect, the taxpayers don't fare well in the eyes of the court when they attempt to claim reliance on the advice of the professional that did sign off on the position.The materials for this week are available at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-07-28_Preparer_Shop.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast is about the preparer standards and tax return positions. In the case of Wadsworth v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-171, we see a real world situation where a tax professional decided a position was not one that he could accept and what happened when the client decided to find another person who would take the requested position. As you might expect, the taxpayers don't fare well in the eyes of the court when they attempt to claim reliance on the advice of the professional that did sign off on the position. The materials for this week are available at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-07-28_Preparer_Shop.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 preparer standards and tax return positions. In the case of Wadsworth v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-171, we see a real world situation where a tax professional decided a position was not one that he could accept and what happened when the client decided to find another person who would take the requested position. As you might expect, the taxpayers don't fare well in the eyes of the court when they attempt to claim reliance on the advice of the professional that did sign off on the position. The materials for this week are available at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-07-28_Preparer_Shop.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

Partnership taxation is one of those areas where things may not work exactly as many practitioners expect, and those unexpected workings are things that tax shelter promoters have attempted to make use of.  But if you are going to try and use the technical details of the tax law to force the IRS to grant you a tax benefit that otherwise doesn't seem like something that should happen, it's helpful to follow the detailed requirements yourself.  Unfortunately for the taxpayer in 7050 Ltd. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-12, that didn't quite happen--and while one bullet was dodged, another problem proved fatal to the benefit the taxpayer was after, and the court never had to deal with whether the shelter actually would have worked if executed as it was supposed to have been.The materials are available at http://www.ezollars.com/2008-05-05_Sloppy.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast is about the interplay between partnership taxation and tax shelters taken beyond the spirit of the law. Partnership taxation is one of those areas where things may not work exactly as many practitioners expect, and those unexpected workings are things that tax shelter promoters have attempted to make use of. But if you are going to try and use the technical details of the tax law to force the IRS to grant you a tax benefit that otherwise doesn't seem like something that should happen, it's helpful to follow the detailed requirements yourself. Unfortunately for the taxpayer in 7050 Ltd. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-12, that didn't quite happen--and while one bullet was dodged, another problem proved fatal to the benefit the taxpayer was after, and the court never had to deal with whether the shelter actually would have worked if executed as it was supposed to have been. The materials are available at http://www.ezollars.com/2008-05-05_Sloppy.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 interplay between partnership taxation and tax shelters taken beyond the spirit of the law. Partnership taxation is one of those areas where things may not work exactly as many practitioners expect, and those unexpected workings are things that tax shelter promoters have attempted to make use of. But if you are going to try and use the technical details of the tax law to force the IRS to grant you a tax benefit that otherwise doesn't seem like something that should happen, it's helpful to follow the detailed requirements yourself. Unfortunately for the taxpayer in 7050 Ltd. v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-12, that didn't quite happen--and while one bullet was dodged, another problem proved fatal to the benefit the taxpayer was after, and the court never had to deal with whether the shelter actually would have worked if executed as it was supposed to have been. The materials are available at http://www.ezollars.com/2008-05-05_Sloppy.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

After a hiatus at the end of tax season, we return with a new show dealing with an issue of whether a payment to a person was compensation income or a gift.  The case in question is the case of Larsen v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-73.The materials for the podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-16_GiftorComp.pdf.We also briefly discuss an interesting episode of a podcast I found on small service business operating issues at a place you might not look--check out http://macbreaktech.com/63/making-mac-your-business/ for an interesting listen that really isn't very MacIntosh (or even computer) centric--just a general discussion of issues facing small service businesses.The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimberservices.com .

This PodCast pertains to the distinction between compensation income and gifts. Specifically, the issue is, Is a payment to a person taxable compensation income or a non-taxable (for income tax purposes) gift. The case in question is the case of Larsen v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-73.The materials for the podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-16_Gift_Comp.pdf.We also briefly discuss an interesting episode of a podcast I found on small service business operating issues at a place you might not look--check out http://macbreaktech.com/63/making-mac-your-business/ for an interesting listen that really isn't very MacIntosh (or even computer) centric--just a general discussion of issues facing small service businesses.. 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 pertains to the distinction between compensation income and gifts. Specifically, the issue is, Is a payment to a person taxable compensation income or a non-taxable (for income tax purposes) gift. The case in question is the case of Larsen v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-73.The materials for the podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-16_Gift_Comp.pdf.We also briefly discuss an interesting episode of a podcast I found on small service business operating issues at a place you might not look--check out http://macbreaktech.com/63/making-mac-your-business/ for an interesting listen that really isn't very MacIntosh (or even computer) centric--just a general discussion of issues facing small service businesses.. 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 pertains to the distinction between compensation income and gifts. Specifically, the issue is, Is a payment to a person taxable compensation income or a non-taxable (for income tax purposes) gift. The case in question is the case of Larsen v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-73.The materials for the podcast are at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-04-16_Gift_Comp.pdf.We also briefly discuss an interesting episode of a podcast I found on small service business operating issues at a place you might not look--check out http://macbreaktech.com/63/making-mac-your-business/ for an interesting listen that really isn't very MacIntosh (or even computer) centric--just a general discussion of issues facing small service businesses.. 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 the Tax Court's second pass at the case of Hubert v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-46, a case that sent back to the Tax Court by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide if the LLC debt restoration provision made the taxpayer the payer of last resort under the Sixth Circuit's test.  The Tax Court comes back saying no.The materials can be found at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-03-10_Risky_Business.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast examines an LLC debt restoration provision. We look at the Tax Court's second pass at the case of Hubert v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-46, a case sent back to the Tax Court by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide if the LLC debt restoration provision made the taxpayer the payer of last resort under the Sixth Circuit's test. The Tax Court comes back saying "No". The materials can be found at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-03-10_Risky_Business.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 examines an LLC debt restoration provision. We look at the Tax Court's second pass at the case of Hubert v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-46, a case sent back to the Tax Court by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide if the LLC debt restoration provision made the taxpayer the payer of last resort under the Sixth Circuit's test. The Tax Court comes back saying "No". The materials can be found at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-03-10_Risky_Business.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 examines an LLC debt restoration provision. We look at the Tax Court's second pass at the case of Hubert v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-46, a case sent back to the Tax Court by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide if the LLC debt restoration provision made the taxpayer the payer of last resort under the Sixth Circuit's test. The Tax Court comes back saying "No". The materials can be found at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-03-10_Risky_Business.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

We look at a case where the IRS failed in an attempt to argue that a transaction had no economic substance or otherwise failed under the anti-abuse partnership regulations.  The case is Countryside Limited Partnership v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-3 where the taxpayers used the partnership distribution rules to allow two partners to have their interests in the partnership liquidated with no tax cost just prior to the partnership selling a significant asset at a gain.The materials are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-01-14_Partnership.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast concerns the economic substance doctrine. We look at a case where the IRS failed in an attempt to argue that a transaction had no economic substance or otherwise failed under the anti-abuse partnership regulations. The case is Countryside Limited Partnership v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-3 where the taxpayers used the partnership distribution rules to allow two partners to have their interests in the partnership liquidated with no tax cost just prior to the partnership selling a significant asset at a gain.The materials are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-01-14_Partnership.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 concerns the economic substance doctrine. We look at a case where the IRS failed in an attempt to argue that a transaction had no economic substance or otherwise failed under the anti-abuse partnership regulations. The case is Countryside Limited Partnership v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2008-3 where the taxpayers used the partnership distribution rules to allow two partners to have their interests in the partnership liquidated with no tax cost just prior to the partnership selling a significant asset at a gain.The materials are located at http://www.edzollars.com/2008-01-14_Partnership.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

We once again revisit the Cohan rule, but this time in the context of a much larger taxpayer than we normally look at, in the case of Tyson Foods, Inc and Subsidiaries vs. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-188.  The taxpayer's was attempting to argue, based on Cohan rationalization, that they should be able to depreciate a $2,000,000+ debit remaining on their books after making an agreed upon adjustment under IRS exam.  The IRS (and eventually the Tax Court) did not agree that such a treatment should be allowed.The materials for the case are at http://www.edzollars.com/2007-07-21.pdf . The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast revisits the Cohan (records keeping) rule, but this time in the context of a much larger taxpayer than we normally look at, in the case of Tyson Foods, Inc and Subsidiaries vs. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-188. The taxpayer was attempting to argue, based on Cohan rationalization, that they should be able to depreciate a $2,000,000+ debit remaining on their books after making an agreed upon adjustment under IRS exam. The IRS (and eventually the Tax Court) did not agree that such a treatment should be allowed. The materials for the case are at http://www.edzollars.com/2007-07-21.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 revisits the Cohan (records keeping) rule, but this time in the context of a much larger taxpayer than we normally look at, in the case of Tyson Foods, Inc and Subsidiaries vs. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-188. The taxpayer was attempting to argue, based on Cohan rationalization, that they should be able to depreciate a $2,000,000+ debit remaining on their books after making an agreed upon adjustment under IRS exam. The IRS (and eventually the Tax Court) did not agree that such a treatment should be allowed. The materials for the case are at http://www.edzollars.com/2007-07-21.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 Medical Reimbursement Plans (MRPs). In the 2006 Speltz case the taxpayer prevailed in a medical reimbursement plan provided for her husband who worked for the taxpayer's daycare business as an employee. That was a case where the taxpayer kept excellent records and truly kept track of all the necessary details. This Podcast reflects the results in two cases where taxpayers were not as meticulous with such plans and the results were not nearly as good.We look at the cases of Snorek v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-34 and Francis v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-33 for taxpayers who adopted medical reimbursement plans but found that there was more to sustaining the deduction than just doing that. The materials for this week's presentation can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2007-02-17_Medical.pdf We also share early experiences with Microsoft Vista, Word 2007 and Excel 2007. You can also find a tipcard for Excel 2007 at the following site: http://www.mrexcel.com/excel2007tipcard.html The author of that site also has a daily video podcast filled with Excel tips. Information about the podcast can be found at: http://www.mrexcel.com/podcast.shtml And, as you might expect, information about his offerings in general can be found at http://www.mrexcel.com . 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

Back in February of 2006, I did a podcast on medical reimbursement plans and went over the Speltz case where the taxpayer prevailed in a medical reimbursement plan provided for her husband who worked for the taxpayer’s daycare business as an employee.  That was a case where the taxpayer kept excellent records and truly kept track of all the necessary details.  This week the Tax Court gave opinions in two cases where taxpayers were not as meticulous with such plans—and the results were not nearly as good. We look at the cases of Snorek v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-34 and Francis v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-33 for taxpayers who adopted medical reimbursement plans but found that there was more to sustaining the deduction than just doing that. The materials for this week’s presentation can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2007-02-17_Medical.pdf I also discuss my early experiences with Microsoft Vista, Word 2007 and Excel 2007.  I also reference a tipcard for Excel 2007 you can get from the following site: http://www.mrexcel.com/excel2007tipcard.html You’ll the author of the above site also has a daily video podcast filled with Excel tips.  Information about the podcast can be found at: http://www.mrexcel.com/podcast.shtml And, as you might expect, information about his offerings in general can be found at http://www.mrexcel.com . The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

This Podcast is about timing. We examine the case of a traveler who got bitten when she attempted to make use of the hotel to get a package picked up by a private delivery service-a package that happened to contain her petition to the Tax Court which she was filing on the last day available. When the delivery service reported picking up the package the following day, the IRS argued that she had blown her chance to file in Tax Court--and the Tax Court agreed.The case is Austin v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-11 and the materials can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2007-01-27_Late_Filing.pdf.We also discuss the IRS announcement that 2006 returns won't be due until April 17 due to April 16 being a city holiday in the District of Columbia and its impact at the state level. Finally, this PodCast covers this week's release by Microsoft of the consumer version of Windows Vista and Office 2007. 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

We look at the case of a traveler who got bitten when she attempted to make use of the hotel to get a package picked up by a private delivery service-a package that happened to contain her petition to the Tax Court which she was filing on the last day available.  When the delivery service reported picking up the package the following day, the IRS argued that she had blown her chance to file in Tax Court--and the Tax Court agreed.The case is Austin v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-11 and the materials can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2007-01-27_Late_Filing.pdf.We also discuss the IRS announcement this week that 2006 returns won't be due until April 17 due to April 16 being a city holiday in the District of Columbia and its impact at the state level, and this week's release by Microsoft of the consumer version of Windows Vista and Office 2007.The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

Sometimes life just doesn't seem fair.  Like when you exercise stock options from your former employer, and the stock price drops 20% from the date you told your employer to exercise the options until just a few days later.  And, even worse, at the last minute you revoked instructions to your former employer to immediately sell the shares upon exercise and instead decided to hold the shares.  In this case, the taxpayer attempted to salvage something from this by arguing that the later date was the measuring date for the compensation value since that was the date that the employer actually received the funds for the shares.This is the story we look at in the case of Walter v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-2, a story that doesn't have a happy ending for the taxpayer.The printed materials are found at http://edzollars.com/2007-01-06_Options.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast is about stock options. Sometimes life just doesn't seem fair. Like when you exercise stock options from your former employer, and the stock price drops 20% from the date you told your employer to exercise the options until just a few days later. And, even worse, at the last minute you revoked instructions to your former employer to immediately sell the shares upon exercise and instead decided to hold the shares. Here, the taxpayer attempted to salvage something from this by arguing that the later date was the measuring date for the compensation value since that was the date that the employer actually received the funds for the shares.This is the story we look at in the case of Walter v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2007-2, a story that doesn't have a happy ending for the taxpayer.The printed materials are found at http://edzollars.com/2007-01-06_Options.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

The mark to market election under Section 475(f) can have a major impact for individuals that were unsuccessful in their attempt to become a day trader-which turns out to be the majority of those who try.  However, the election has rather strict requirements on when the election must be filed, and as the taxpayer in Knish v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-268, learned as he tried to unsuccessfully argue for the validity of his election filed 18 months after the date that Revenue Procedure 99-17 required it have been filed.The materials for this podcast can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2006-12-31_Mark_to_Market.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, found on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

This PodCast is about the Section 475(f) mark-to-market election. The mark to market election under Section 475(f) can have a major impact for individuals that were unsuccessful in their attempt to become a day trader (which turns out to be the majority of those who try). However, the election has rather strict requirements on when the election must be filed - as the taxpayer in Knish v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-268, learned as he tried to unsuccessfully argue for the validity of his election - filed 18 months after the date that Revenue Procedure 99-17 required it have been filed.The materials for this podcast can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2006-12-31_Mark_to_Market.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

The podcast this week deals with the case of Estate of Landers, TC Memo 2006-230, where an estate's co-administrator attempted to seek a finding that there was reasonable cause for late filing based upon his reliance upon his (now deceased) co-administrator, who was a tax professional, and who suffered a broken hip two months before the extended due date of the estate tax return.The case offers a look at what does and doesn't constitute reasonable cause for late filing, as well as the issue of whether a nonprofessional can be excused for not being aware of the due date of a return if he claims he relied upon a professional to inform him of the due date.The materials are located at http://edzollars.com/2006-11-01_Late_Filing_Tax_Professional.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

This podcast deals with the case of Estate of Landers, TC Memo 2006-230, where an estate's co-administrator attempted to seek a finding that there was reasonable cause for late filing based upon his reliance upon his (now deceased) co-administrator, who was a tax professional, and who suffered a broken hip two months before the extended due date of the estate tax return.The case offers a look at what does and doesn't constitute reasonable cause for late filing, as well as the issue of whether a nonprofessional can be excused for not being aware of the due date of a return if he claims he relied upon a professional to inform him of the due date.The materials are located at http://edzollars.com/2006-11-01_Late_Filing_Tax_Professional.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 deals with the case of Estate of Landers, TC Memo 2006-230, where an estate's co-administrator attempted to seek a finding that there was reasonable cause for late filing based upon his reliance upon his (now deceased) co-administrator, who was a tax professional, and who suffered a broken hip two months before the extended due date of the estate tax return.The case offers a look at what does and doesn't constitute reasonable cause for late filing, as well as the issue of whether a nonprofessional can be excused for not being aware of the due date of a return if he claims he relied upon a professional to inform him of the due date.The materials are located at http://edzollars.com/2006-11-01_Late_Filing_Tax_Professional.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

The issue of whether a service provider is properly treated as a contractor or employee is an important issue for many small businesses.  In the case of Orion Contracting Trust v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-211, the Tax Court looked at this issue.  As well, the Court also took a look at the issue of what actions would indicate the proper "bad faith" to allow the imposition of a fraud penalty.The materials for the podcast can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-09-30_Who_Is_An_Employee.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services.  Visit them on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com . .

This PodCast is about the definition of the term, "employee". The issue of whether a service provider is properly treated as a contractor or employee is an important issue for many small businesses. In the case of Orion Contracting Trust v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-211, the Tax Court looked at this issue. As well, the Court also took a look at the issue of what actions would indicate the proper "bad faith" to allow the imposition of a fraud penalty.The materials for the podcast can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-09-30_Who_Is_An_Employee.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 definition of the term, "employee". The issue of whether a service provider is properly treated as a contractor or employee is an important issue for many small businesses. In the case of Orion Contracting Trust v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-211, the Tax Court looked at this issue. As well, the Court also took a look at the issue of what actions would indicate the proper "bad faith" to allow the imposition of a fraud penalty.The materials for the podcast can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-09-30_Who_Is_An_Employee.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 deals with the continuing problems of employee related options that were exercised when the stock was at a high price, but whose price collapsed before the tax was due. The case involved was the case of Racine v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-162.The materials can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-19_Margins_and_Options.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 deals with the continuing problems of employee related options that were exercised when the stock was at a high price, but whose price collapsed before the tax was due. The case involved was the case of Racine v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-162.The materials can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-19_Margins_and_Options.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 deals with the continuing problems of employee related options that were exercised when the stock was at a high price, but whose price collapsed before the tax was due. The case involved was the case of Racine v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-162.The materials can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-19_Margins_and_Options.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

We look at a case this week that deals with the continuing problems of employee related options that were exercised when the stock was at a high price, but whose price collapsed before the tax was due.  The case involved was the case of Racine v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-162.The materials can be downloaded at http://edzollars.com/2006-08-19_Margins_and_Options.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services at http://www.leimbergservices.com .

Divorce settlements at times are frustrating for tax preparers to work with, since they often leave dangling the issue of whether payments were or were not intended to be alimony and, not surprisingly, the former spouses may have very different views on that issue.  In this week's case, the Tax Court was forced to settle the issue after lecturing the warring spouses in his opinion about how the issue should have been taken care of well before this point.The case in question is the case of Johanson and Melzig v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-105.  You can download the materials from http://edzollars.com/2006-06-02_Alimony.pdf.This podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

This Podcast is about the tax implications of divorce and alimony. Divorce settlements at times are frustrating for tax preparers to work with, since they often leave dangling the issue of whether payments were or were not intended to be alimony and, not surprisingly, the former spouses may have very different views on that issue. The Tax Court was forced to settle the issue after lecturing the warring spouses in his opinion about how the issue should have been taken care of well before this point.The case in question is the case of Johanson and Melzig v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-105. You can download the materials from http://edzollars.com/2006-06-02_Alimony.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

We look at the exclusion for personal injuries under Section 104 this week, as well as the nature of a reasonable cause for purposes of escaping the imposition of a penalty.  We use the case of Goode v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-48, to illustrate these issues.  As well, we look at another attempt at getting reasonable cause to take a position--ask the President (as in George W. Bush), or at least have someone else do it and then claim to rely on the answer received when the question is delegated to an individual at the IRS.  This was the attempt of teh taxpayer in Smith v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-51.The materials can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-04-01_Injury.pdf.This podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com.

This PodCast focues on the exclusion for personal injuries under Section 104 , as well as the nature of a reasonable cause for purposes of escaping the imposition of a penalty. We use the case of Goode v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-48, to illustrate these issues. As well, we look at another attempt at getting reasonable cause to take a position--ask the President (as in George W. Bush), or at least have someone else do it and then claim to rely on the answer received when the question is delegated to an individual at the IRS. This was the attempt of the taxpayer in Smith v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2006-51.The materials can be downloaded from http://edzollars.com/2006-04-01_Injury.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

This week's podcast deals with arbitration awards and IRA accounts. What happens when a taxpayer is awarded an amount in arbitration regarding the management of an IRA account, but the award is paid to the taxpayer? Can these funds be put back into the IRA? This week we look at three IRS private letter rulings on the subject to show both what has worked and what has not, at least in the IRS's view. We also look at the case of a taxpayer who tries to invoke the Cohan case, only to have the Tax Court explain the limits of the use of that case. As well, the court points out that merely because the IRS settled a similar case in a certain manner doesn't entitle the taxpayer to the same settlement. The case is Stewart v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-212. Be sure to download the related materials for this podcast from this link.

This Podcast deals with arbitration awards and IRA accounts. What happens when a taxpayer is awarded an amount in arbitration regarding the management of an IRA account, but the award is paid to the taxpayer? Can these funds be put back into the IRA? We consider three IRS private letter rulings on the subject to show both what has worked and what has not, at least in the IRS's view. We also look at the case of a taxpayer who tries to invoke the Cohan case, only to have the Tax Court explain the limits of the use of that case. As well, the court points out that merely because the IRS settled a similar case in a certain manner doesn't entitle the taxpayer to the same settlement. The case is Stewart v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-212. Be sure to download the related materials for this podcast from this link. 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 deals with arbitration awards and IRA accounts. What happens when a taxpayer is awarded an amount in arbitration regarding the management of an IRA account, but the award is paid to the taxpayer? Can these funds be put back into the IRA? We consider three IRS private letter rulings on the subject to show both what has worked and what has not, at least in the IRS's view. We also look at the case of a taxpayer who tries to invoke the Cohan case, only to have the Tax Court explain the limits of the use of that case. As well, the court points out that merely because the IRS settled a similar case in a certain manner doesn't entitle the taxpayer to the same settlement. The case is Stewart v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-212. Be sure to download the related materials for this podcast from this link. 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’s podcast deals with two recent cases, one a win for taxpayers and one a loss. You can download the material (which consists of the two cases) from this link. In the first case, Davis v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-202, a taxpayer had to foot the bill for over nearly $7,900 in fees to contest an IRS assessment because of a mix-up over his address that caused notices of the pending exam, as well as the notices prior to assessment when the case could have gone to appeals, to be sent to the address the taxpayer shared with his ex-spouse. The Tax Court held that while the IRS apparently misdirected one notice that should have gone to a different address per its own files, later notices that would have enabled the taxpayer to contest matters earlier went to the wrong address because the taxpayer continued to list his old address on the 1040s he filed. In the second case, Allemeier v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-207, a taxpayer proves that what many tax preparers “know” is not necessarily the case—that obtaining an advanced degree will automatically cause education expenses to fail the test on whether the taxpayer has qualified for a new position and thus lose the deduction. Mr. Allemeier succeeded, representing himself, in having the court allow him to claim the costs of his MBA educational program over the objections of the IRS. I’m uploading this show before I head to Tucson for a day, so it’s going up a little early this week. I’ll likely be taping the podcast for next week while in Tucson (I usually try and get them ready in advance so there’s less pressure to meet a schedule.

This week we look at a recent decision (Brooks v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005-204) involving the impact of repaying S corporation debt during the year when, at the beginning of the year, the shareholder’s basis was less than the face amount of the note. In the case in question, the shareholders repaid such a debt in its entirety at the beginning of the year, the corporation sustained a loss during the year, and then the taxpayer loan back enough money to both return the entire repayment and then advance enough additional to give basis to take the loss. The court analyzed this case and how it differed from the case of Corneilus v. Commissioner, 58 TC 417, affd CA-5, 74-1 USTC ¶9446, 494 F2d 465, 33 AFTR 2d ¶74-1331). As we normally do, the podcast materials can be downloaded here on the ezollars.libsyn.com website—to get them click this link (if you are reading notes attached to the podcast in iTunes you’ll need to actually go to the site first to do that clicking). The Phoenix Tax Workshop will start its new year’s programs this month. I won’t be able to attend the first meeting (I’m going to be speaking at the Virginia Accounting & Auditing Conference in Roanoke, Virginia sponsored by the Virginia Society of CPAs and Virginia Tech University at that time), but I would suggest those in Phoenix consider signing up for the program. Of course, if you're close to Roanoke go ahead and sign up for that conference. My topic is on technology in the local accounting practice, but there are lots of other issues covered in those two days. The conference will be repeated in November in Virginia Beach, and I'll be there as well, so that's another option for anyone in Virginia or nearby. As well, continuing from the midweek podcast earlier this week, remember to consider the needs of the agencies serving those affected by Hurricane Katrina. The Red Cross, along with Yahoo, have established a website that makes it very easy to donate a standard amount to hurricane relief using your credit card. Please take the time to make a donation to help the relief effort, either via that site or through another relief agency. Remember that, unfortunately, these types of tragedies spawn their own scams—so be sure to check out any charity you aren’t familiar with before parting with your check. The crooks are going to be calling, sending out emails and and setting up their own websites. On the latter issue—the safest way to be sure you are at the website for the real charity is to be sure and type the address into your browser’s address bar or click only on links where you trust that those responsible for the website are both trying to send you to the proper site and have done their homework to assure that they have linked to the real charity. I expect “phishing” emails to start to hit mailboxes soon taking advantage of this situation. On an administrative aside: the text below allows me to “claim” this podcast on Odeo (an online podcast listening service). My Odeo Channel (odeo/4410b05381cc2d63)

This Podcast considers a decision (Brooks v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005 - 204) involving the impact of repaying S corporation debt during the year when, at the beginning of the year, the shareholder's basis was less than the face amount of the note. In the case in question, the shareholders repaid such a debt in its entirety at the beginning of the year, the corporation sustained a loss during the year, and then the taxpayer loan back enough money to both return the entire repayment and then advance enough additional to give basis to take the loss.To download the podcast materials, click this link (if you are reading notes attached to the podcast in iTunes you will need to actually go to the site first to do that clicking). 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 a decision (Brooks v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2005 - 204) involving the impact of repaying S corporation debt during the year when, at the beginning of the year, the shareholder's basis was less than the face amount of the note. In the case in question, the shareholders repaid such a debt in its entirety at the beginning of the year, the corporation sustained a loss during the year, and then the taxpayer loan back enough money to both return the entire repayment and then advance enough additional to give basis to take the loss.To download the podcast materials, click this link (if you are reading notes attached to the podcast in iTunes you will need to actually go to the site first to do that clicking). 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

Show 5.5 (not a weekly show--kind of a "special report"). This show presents a "first day" view of the Strangi decision issued today by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit upheld the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2003-145, but did so without ruling on the merits of the §2036(a)(2) analysis that many practitioners viewed as the major concern in that case. From a CPA's perspective, this discussion looks at the risks involved from the fact that it's become clear that §2036(a)(1) attacks on operational problems with the FLP will render the FLP ineffective as a transfer vehicle. Accountants' journal entries are a recurring theme in the cases that lose in court on §2036(a)(1), and this fact should not be lost on CPAs who will be doing 1065s and other accounting for such partnerships. As well, I do a quick discussion of what types of clients likely should not be advised to make use of a family limited partnership given the §2036(a)(1) problems.

This presents a "first day" view of the Strangi decision issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit upheld the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2003-145, but did so without ruling on the merits of the 2036(a)(2) analysis that many practitioners viewed as the major concern in that case. From a CPA's perspective, this discussion looks at the risks involved from the fact that it's become clear that 2036(a)(1) attacks on operational problems with the FLP will render the FLP ineffective as a transfer vehicle. Accountants' journal entries are a recurring theme in the cases that lose in court on 2036(a)(1), and this fact should not be lost on CPAs who will be doing 1065s and other accounting for such partnerships. This Podcast provides a quick discussion of what types of clients likely should not be advised to make use of a family limited partnership given the Section 2036(a)(1) problems. 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 presents a "first day" view of the Strangi decision issued by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit upheld the Tax Court's decision in TC Memo 2003-145, but did so without ruling on the merits of the 2036(a)(2) analysis that many practitioners viewed as the major concern in that case. From a CPA's perspective, this discussion looks at the risks involved from the fact that it's become clear that 2036(a)(1) attacks on operational problems with the FLP will render the FLP ineffective as a transfer vehicle. Accountants' journal entries are a recurring theme in the cases that lose in court on 2036(a)(1), and this fact should not be lost on CPAs who will be doing 1065s and other accounting for such partnerships. This Podcast provides a quick discussion of what types of clients likely should not be advised to make use of a family limited partnership given the Section 2036(a)(1) problems. 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