Podcasts about United States Tax Court

“If the decision-makers keep deciding that digital assets are just this fringe thing, there's going to be a missed opportunity”In this episode of Seize & Desist, our host, Aidan Larkin, explores tax compliance and enforcement in cryptocurrency with Miles Fuller, the director of government solutions at Taxbit, former senior counsel with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and former Special Assistant United States Attorney.Miles shares his background in tax litigation with the IRS and provides insights into how Taxbit helps to trace criminal assets by combining on-chain and off-chain data to gain a comprehensive view of an individual's tax obligations.They also discuss the suitability of existing digital asset seizure legislation, the IRS' use of John Doe summons to obtain information from exchanges and the delicate balance between ensuring privacy in cryptocurrency transactions and preventing tax evasion before examining and speculating on the future of tax-related asset seizures.Timestamps00:00 - Special Announcement - Asset Reality's partnership with Taxbit03:00 - Miles' background with the IRS07:00 - Investigative tools and data aggregation in asset seizures10:30 - Tracing tools and address attribution in tax investigations11:30 - Integrating complex financial data for tax calculations13:00 - Streamlining financial investigations with crypto data tools16:00 - Challenges of detecting fraud in the virtual asset space21:00 - John Doe Summons in tax evasion investigations26:00 - Balancing privacy and compliance in blockchain transactions32:30 - Challenges of virtual asset seizures by governments41:00 - The future of tax compliance in the digital asset eraResources MentionedAsset Reality and Taxbit Partner to Enhance Digital Asset Seizure and ManagementDigital Asset Brokers: A Complete Guide to US Tax Compliance - Taxbit About our Guest:Miles Fuller is the Director of Government Solutions at Taxbit.As a former senior counsel with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and former Special Assistant United States Attorney, Miles has a wealth of experience in tax-related asset seizures, having represented the IRS before the United States Tax Court, and has deep expertise in virtual asset tax and compliance issues, including regulatory guidance and policy development. Miles is also skilled in advanced investigation techniques for digital assets and has played a pivotal role in developing strategies to navigate the complexities of digital currency regulations.DisclaimerOur podcasts are for informational purposes only. They are not intended to provide legal, tax, financial, and/or investment advice. Listeners must consult their own advisors before making decisions on the topics discussed. Asset Reality has no responsibility or liability for any decision made or any other acts or omissions in connection with your use of this material.The views expressed by guests are their own and their appearance on the program does not imply an endorsement of them or any entity they represent. Views and opinions expressed by Asset Reality employees are those of the employees and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Asset Reality does not guarantee or warrant the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, suitability or validity of the information in any particular podcast and will not be responsible for any claim attributable to errors, omissions, or other inaccuracies of any part of such material. Unless stated otherwise, reference to any specific product or entity does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by Asset Reality.

The United States Tax Court ruled in a Feb. 20 decision that a taxpayer was correct to include bond issuance costs in eligible basis for a 4% low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) property in New York City. That decision ran counter to more than two decades of practice that followed Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidance from as far back as 2000 that said including such costs was disallowed. In the latest installment of Tax Credit Tuesday, Michael Novogradac, CPA, and Nicolo Pinoli, CPA, discuss the details of the case in question before the court as well as the possible ramifications of the decision, including what the IRS could do now and what this decision could mean for credit allocating agencies, developers, investors and others who build multifamily affordable rental housing using LIHTCs.

Robert Berluti, a partner at Berluti McLaughlin & Kutchin LLP, practices all aspects of complex civil litigation. He has extensive experience in jury and bench trials of all forms of business and employment disputes including. His accomplishments include securing the largest Massachusetts jury verdict ever recorded in an age discrimination case. His clients include large and small businesses in diverse industries. Mr. Berluti has tried cases in state and federal courts including the United States Tax Court and has appeared in state and federal trial and appellate courts in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, as well as state and federal administrative agencies, including FINRA and the Internal Revenue Service. He advises clients in all aspects of business disputes, including between shareholders/partners, valuation (including in divorce actions), derivative actions, individual and class action wage and hour cases, trade secrets, intellectual property, non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, employment law, contract, real estate, and construction disputes. He also represents individuals in serious personal injury cases and investor – broker disputes. He has also defended businesses in personal injury matters such as dram shop cases. He represents families in probate litigation, such as will contests. Mr. Berluti has extensive experience in all forms of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-berluti-247b79169/ BMK Legal: https://www.bmklegal.com/

Robert Berluti, a partner at Berluti McLaughlin & Kutchin LLP, practices all aspects of complex civil litigation. He has extensive experience in jury and bench trials of all forms of business and employment disputes including. His accomplishments include securing the largest Massachusetts jury verdict ever recorded in an age discrimination case. His clients include large and small businesses in diverse industries. Mr. Berluti has tried cases in state and federal courts including the United States Tax Court and has appeared in state and federal trial and appellate courts in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, as well as state and federal administrative agencies, including FINRA and the Internal Revenue Service. He advises clients in all aspects of business disputes, including between shareholders/partners, valuation (including in divorce actions), derivative actions, individual and class action wage and hour cases, trade secrets, intellectual property, non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, employment law, contract, real estate, and construction disputes. He also represents individuals in serious personal injury cases and investor – broker disputes. He has also defended businesses in personal injury matters such as dram shop cases. He represents families in probate litigation, such as will contests. Mr. Berluti has extensive experience in all forms of alternative dispute resolution, including arbitration and mediation. Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robert-berluti-247b79169/ BMK Legal: https://www.bmklegal.com/

My guest in this episode is Elizabeth Tresp. Elizabeth earned her BA at Middlesex University in London in 1999. She completed her Juris Doctor (JD) and Master of Laws (LLM) at the University of San Diego School of Law, earning the highest honors in Criminal Tax Fraud and Taxation of Anti-Money Laundering. Staying involved in her community is important to Elizabeth, which is why you can find her volunteering at her children's schools and donating her time to local non-profits. Elizabeth is a skilled public speaker and has been featured in several podcasts and webinars. Elizabeth has a passion for theater and is the Vice President of the board of directors at her local theater, North Coast Repertory Theatre. Elizabeth is a member of The State Bar of California (Bar Number 290339), the San Diego County Bar Association, Probate Attorneys of San Diego, and the American Bar Association. In addition to California State Courts, she practices before the United States Tax Court and the United States District Court, Southern District of California. Interview Links: Tresp Day https://www.trespday.com/ Tresp Law https://www.tresplaw.com/ Resources: The 21 Best Cashflow Niches™: www.cashflowninja.com/21niches Subscribe To The Best Cashflow Niches™ Newsletter: www.cashflowninja.com/bestniches Join My Inner Circle & Mastermind Cashflow Nirvana www.cashflowninja.com/nirvana Connect With Us: Website: http://cashflowninja.com Podcast: http://resetinvestingsecrets.com Podcast: http://cashflowinvestingsecrets.com Substack: https://mclaubscher.substack.com/ Amazon Audible: https://a.co/d/1xfM1Vx Amazon Audible: https://a.co/d/aGzudX0 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cashflowninja/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/mclaubscher Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecashflowninja/ Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mclaubscher/ Gab: https://gab.com/cashflowninja Gettr: https://gettr.com/user/mclaubscher Minds: https://www.minds.com/cashflowninja Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/c/Cashflowninja Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/cashflowninja/ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-329875 Odysee: https://odysee.com/@Cashflowninja:9 Gab Tv: https://tv.gab.com/channel/cashflowninja Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/cashflowninja

Rodney Varner Genprex Chairman, President & CEO shared timeless advice with the SmartMoneyCircle.com audience. Bio: Rodney Varner is a co-founder of Genprex and has served as President, Chief Executive Officer and Secretary, and as Chairman of its board of directors since August 2012. Mr. Varner served as a partner of the law firm Wilson & Varner, LLP, since 1991. Mr. Varner has more than thirty-five years of legal experience with large and small law firms and as outside general counsel of a Nasdaq-listed company. Mr. Varner has represented for-profit and non-profit companies at the board of directors or senior management levels in a wide variety of contractual, business, tax, and securities matters, including technology transfers, licensing, collaboration and research agreements, clinical trial contracts, pharmaceutical and biologics manufacturing and process development contracts, state and federal grants, including NIH and SBA grants, corporate governance and fiduciary issues, and real estate matters. Mr. Varner served as counsel in company formation, mergers and acquisitions, capital raising, other business transactions, protection of trade secrets and other intellectual property, real estate, and business litigation. Mr. Varner is a member of the State Bar of Texas and has been admitted to practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the United States Tax Court. He has been a registered securities representative and founder of a company that is a licensed securities broker-dealer. Mr. Varner received his BBA, with high honors, from Texas A&M University and his J.D. from The University of Texas School of Law. Website: https://www.genprex.com/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/smartmoneycircle/support

Yvonne R. Cort is a Partner at Capell Barnett Matalon & Schoenfeld LLP, where she focuses her practice on resolving Federal and New York State tax controversies. Yvonne has been selected to New York Metro SuperLawyers, a designation given to only 5% of the lawyers in the state. She has served as Chair of the IRS Downstate New York Practitioner Liaison Group and Chair of the Business Law, Tax and Accounting Committee of the Nassau County Bar Association. She is a member of the Executive Committee of the NYS Bar Association Tax Section, where she has contributed to policy papers.. Yvonne has been honored as a Long Island Business News Top 50 Women in Business, and is a recipient of the Long Island Power Women in Business award from Long Island Press. Yvonne received her B. A. magna cum laude from the University of Rochester, and her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. Yvonne is admitted to the Bar in New York and Pennsylvania, and admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court. She is a Steering Committee Member for Women Owned Law.   Listen to this informative The Confident Retirement episode with Yvonne Cort about tax law controversy and how to handle. Here is what to expect on this week's show: Misconceptions about tax law. What is a residency audit? Misconceptions about being audited by the IRS. It's important to get a professional involved ASAP. What about interest and penalties on the taxes? Who makes decisions on how money is spent?   Connect with Yvonne: https://cbmslaw.com/team/yvonne-r-cort/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During his almost twenty-year tax career, John Hurley has represented and advised multiple Fortune 500 companies on a wide array of sophisticated tax issues in various tax disciplines, such as; tax controversy, tax planning, international tax and transfer pricing.     John led the tax controversy practice for Halliburton Corporation, a global oil and gas company, and continued his career path into international taxation, tax planning and Mergers and Acquisitions for other large corporate tax departments at LyondellBasell Industries N.V. and Ryder System, Inc.  Mr. Hurley is admitted to practice law in the Florida state courts, United States Tax Court, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Mr. Hurley is a member of the State Bar of Florida and the Tax Section of the Florida Bar.  Mr. Hurley can represent clients before the IRS, U.S. Tax Court and U.S. District Court (S.D. Fla.), as well as, clients before Florida state tax authorities and Florida state courts (and other state tax authorities where permitted under specific State rules).   Listen to this informative Tax-Alpha Solutions episode with John Hurley about tax controversy and audit discussion.   Here is what to expect on this week's show: -An audit is always a negative thing -What is tax controversy work? -What is a material advisor? -What's a non-disclosure disclosure? -What's the process for resolving a tax dispute? -How long does it take for a audit to happen? -The technology that the IRS is using how it's outdated.   Connect with John: Links Mentioned: https://hurleytaxlaw.com/ The interview and contents are for educational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between Mr. Hurley and the audience that may view the materials. Each viewer should consider engaging its own legal representation, should they have a tax matter that they believe requires legal assistance.   Matthew Chancey is a Registered Representative of Coastal Equities, Inc. and an Investment Advisory Representative of Coastal Investment Advisors, Inc. Neither Coastal Equities, Inc. nor Coastal Investment Advisors, Inc. is affiliated with Micel Financial LLC. Investment Advisory Services are offered through Coastal Investment Advisors, Inc., and securities are offered through Coastal Equities, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, 1201 N. Orange St., Suite 729, Wilmington, DE 19801. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode I speak with my dear friend Micah Gibson who is an International Tax Director at Big 4 accounting firm PWC based in Washington, D.C. In this role, Micah helps global businesses structure their tax arrangements to support their strategic goals. He joined PWC more than 8 years ago after completing his JD and LLM in Tax from Georgetown Law. During his time at Georgetown he was an extern for Judge Albert G. Lauber on the United States Tax Court. In our conversation we talk about what makes tax such a unique area of practice, why being a tax lawyer is exciting because it requires creativity, the difference between working for a law firm and an accounting firm, how he works with clients both internal and external, the way he stays up-to-date in such a fast-changing area of law by digesting the never-ending stream of information in effective ways, the importance of specialization in his area of practice but also the value of having a network who can help you in other areas, the benefit of embracing "hard things," the importance of working with great people, the experience and value of being on the ground during a change in the law, and more. If you enjoy this episode, please make sure to sign up for future episodes at www.howilawyer.com or to subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. This episode is sponsored, edited, and engineered by LawPods, a professional podcast production company for busy attorneys.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries. Legal commentator Daniel B Evans has defined tax protesters as people who "refuse to pay taxes or file tax returns out of a mistaken belief that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, voluntary, or otherwise does not apply to them under one of a number of bizarre arguments" (divided into several classes: constitutional, conspiracy, administrative, statutory, and arguments based on 16th Amendment and the "861" section of the tax code; see the Tax protester arguments article for an overview). Law Professor Allen D Madison has described tax protesters as "those who refuse to pay income tax on the basis of some nonsensical legal argument that he or she does not owe tax." An illegal tax-protest scheme has been defined as "any scheme, without basis in law or fact, designed to express dissatisfaction with the tax laws by interfering with their administration or attempting to illegally avoid or reduce tax liabilities." The United States Tax Court has stated that "tax protester" is a designation "often given to persons who make frivolous antitax arguments". Tax protesters raise a number of different kinds of arguments. In the United States, these typically include constitutional arguments, such as claims that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was not properly ratified or that it is unconstitutional generally, or that being forced to file an income tax return violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Others are statutory arguments suggesting that the income tax is constitutional but the statutes enacting the income tax are ineffective, or that Federal Reserve Notes or other relevant currencies do not constitute cash or income. Yet another collection of arguments centers on general conspiracies involving numerous government agencies. Some tax protesters refuse to file a tax return or file returns with no income or tax data supplied. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

The United States Tax Court (in case citations, T.C.) is a federal trial court of record established by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, section 8 of which provides (in part) that the Congress has the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court". The Tax Court specializes in adjudicating disputes over federal income tax, generally prior to the time at which formal tax assessments are made by the Internal Revenue Service. Though taxpayers may choose to litigate tax matters in a variety of legal settings, outside of bankruptcy, the Tax Court is the only forum in which taxpayers may do so without having first paid the disputed tax in full. Parties who contest the imposition of a tax may also bring an action in any United States District Court, or in the United States Court of Federal Claims; however these venues require that the tax be paid first, and that the party then file a lawsuit to recover the contested amount paid (the "full payment rule" of Flora v United States). The main emblem of the tax court represents a fasces. History. The first incarnation of the Tax Court was the "U.S. Board of Tax Appeals", established by Congress in the Revenue Act of 1924 (also known as the Mellon tax bill) in order to address the increasing complexity of tax-related litigation. Those serving on the Board were simply designated as "members." The members of the Board were empowered to select, on a biennial basis, one of their members as "chairman." In July 1924, Coolidge announced the appointment of the first twelve appointees, of which seven members were appointed from private life and the other five from the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Additional members were appointed in the fall, and the Board when fully constituted originally had 16 members, with Charles D. Hamel serving as the first Chairman. The Board was initially established as an "independent agency in the executive branch of the government." It was housed in the Internal Revenue Service Building in the Federal Triangle. The first session of the Board of Tax Appeals spanned July 16, 1924 to May 31, 1925. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court indicated that the Board of Tax Appeals was not a "court," but was instead "an executive or administrative board, upon the decision of which the parties are given an opportunity to base a petition for review to the courts after the administrative inquiry of the Board has been had and decided." In 1942, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1942, renaming the Board as the "Tax Court of the United States". With this change, the Members became Judges and the Chairman became the Presiding Judge. By 1956, overcrowding and the desire to separate judicial and executive powers led to initial attempts to relocate the court. In 1962, Secretary of the Treasury Douglas Dillon appealed to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to incorporate funds for the design of a new building in its upcoming budget. The GSA allocated $450,000, and commissioned renowned architect Victor A Lundy, who produced a design that was approved in 1966. However, funding constraints brought on by the Vietnam War delayed the start of construction until 1972. The Tax Court was again renamed to its current formal designation in the Tax Reform Act of 1969, changing it from an historically administrative court to a full judicial court. The completed United States Tax Court Building was dedicated on November 22, 1974, the fiftieth anniversary of the Revenue Act that created the court. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

On Episode 63 of The Unique CPA, Tom Gorczynski, Enrolled Agent, Certified Tax Planner, and non-attorney member of the Bar of the United States Tax Court, discusses his role in educating other tax professionals and providing IRS representation for tax preparers. Tom shares his approach to research and education, and he highlights the importance of being a constant learner within the profession. Get the full show notes and more resources at TheUniqueCPA.com

The IRS Seizes Your Bank Account and Takes Your Passport. What Do You Do? | Steve Klitzner | #18You open your mailbox and that's when you see it. An envelope with a return address that starts with three letters: IRS. What did you do? Did you forget to pay something? Did your CPA make a big mistake? Are you the target of an audit? The United States Government has infinite resources to come after you and take everything. They can seize your bank account, shut down your business and make your life hell. Steve Klitzner is the person people call when this happens to them. He represents people who have been the focus of the IRS's wrath. On today's Inside BS Show, Dave Lorenzo interviews Steve and uncovers what you can do when the IRS is knocking on your door. Chapters00:00 Introduction to Solving IRS Problems01:45 What is the Most Common Scenario People with IRS Problems Face?02:41 The IRS Makes Deals, In Fact, That's Their Job, Right?04:00 Steve Kiltzner Has a Relationship with the IRS and He Tells a Story About How that Has Helped Clients04:45 There is Always a Financial Analysis in an IRS Case. What Happens if You Can Pay?06:00 What Happens to People Who Fell Behind on Their Taxes But DO NOT Have Money?06:50 How Much Information Does the IRS Have? How Much Do They Know?07:55 The Case of the Contractor Who Said Too Much to the IRS…09:00 The Reason You Should NEVER Talk to the IRS Without Representation09:15 When Do People Go to Jail for Not Paying Taxes?11:38 Why Licensed Professionals Should Be Highly Concerned About Unpaid Taxes12:47 Why Attorneys Sometimes “forget” to Pay Taxes14:39 Why April 15 is Not the day to PAY Your Taxes and When You Should Pay15:30 Here is the Step-by-Step Timeline for IRS Tax Issues16:35 What an IRS Transcript is and Why it is Important18:27 The IRS Can Take Your Passport! Who Does This Happen To?26:22 What Are the Most Common Red Flags that Trigger an Audit?29:30 Who is a Qualified Tax Professional?30:24 Who to Use for Your Taxes if You Are a Business Owner?33:00 What Is an Innocent Spouse and What Happens When Someone Gets Divorced?35:30 Can IRS Debt Be Discharged in Bankruptcy?38:05 Who is the Person Who Doesn't Pay Their Taxes? It's Not Who You Think.41:45 The Three Things Steve Does for His Clients45:00 What Steve Does as a Member of the IRS Advisory Council46:15 Why You Should Never Use a Non-Attorney Service that Advertises Tax Relief48:00 The Advantages for Using an Attorney to Work with the IRS52:53 Steve Works with Clients All Over the Country53:20 What is the Threshold for Steve to Take on a Case?Steve KlitznerIRS Problem Resolution Attorney(305) 682-1118https://floridataxsolvers.com/steve@floridaTaxSolvers.comAbout Steve KlitznerSteven N. Klitzner is a Miami attorney who practices exclusively in the area of IRS Problem Resolution. Steve is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, United States Tax Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.In 2021, Steve was appointed to a three-year term with the Internal Revenue Service Advisory Council (IRSAC).  The IRSAC presents an annual report of recommendations to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  He is a charter member of the American Society of Tax Problem Solvers, a member of its Continuing Professional Education Committee, and a recipient of the organization's Top Practitioner Award.  He is a member of the Advisory Board and a Consulting Member of the Tax Freedom Institute, an association of tax professionals in defense of taxpayer rights.Steve frequently lectures around the country, speaking to enrolled agents, attorneys, and certified public accountants in the areas of collections, audits, and appeals.

Tax collection and examinations Tax returns Individuals (with income above a minimum level), corporations, partnerships, estates, and trusts must file annual reports, called tax returns, with federal and appropriate state tax authorities. These returns vary greatly in complexity level depending on the type of filer and complexity of their affairs. On the return, the taxpayer reports income and deductions, calculates the amount of tax owed, reports payments and credits, and calculates the balance due. Federal individual, estate, and trust income tax returns are due by April 15 for most taxpayers. Corporate and partnership federal returns are due two and one half months following the corporation's year end. Tax exempt entity returns are due four and one half months following the entity's year end. All federal returns may be extended, with most extensions available upon merely filing a single page form. Due dates and extension provisions for state and local income tax returns vary. Income tax returns generally consist of the basic form with attached forms and schedules. Several forms are available for individuals and corporations, depending on complexity and nature of the taxpayer's affairs. Many individuals are able to use the one page Form 1040-EZ, which requires no attachments except wage statements from employers (Forms W-2). Individuals claiming itemized deductions must complete Schedule A. Similar schedules apply for interest (B), dividends (B), business income (C), capital gains (D), farm income (F), and self-employment tax (SE). All taxpayers must file those forms for credits, depreciation, AMT, and other items that apply to them. Electronic filing of tax returns may be done for taxpayers by registered tax preparers. If a taxpayer discovers an error on a return, or determines that tax for a year should be different, the taxpayer should file an amended return. These returns constitute claims for refund if taxes are determined to have been overpaid. The IRS, state, and local tax authorities may examine a tax return and propose changes. Changes to tax returns may be made with minimal advance involvement by taxpayers, such as changes to wage or dividend income to correct errors. Other examination of returns may require extensive taxpayer involvement, such as an audit by the IRS. These audits often require that taxpayers provide the IRS or other tax authority access to records of income and deductions. Audits of businesses are usually conducted by IRS personnel at the business location. Changes to returns are subject to appeal by the taxpayer, including going to court. IRS changes are often first issued as proposed adjustments. The taxpayer may agree to the proposal, or may advise the IRS why it disagrees. Proposed adjustments are often resolved by the IRS and taxpayer agreeing to what the adjustment should be. For those adjustments to which agreement is not reached, the IRS issues a 30-day letter advising of the adjustment. The taxpayer may appeal this preliminary assessment within 30 days within the IRS. The Appeals Division reviews the IRS field team determination and taxpayer arguments, and often proposes a solution that the IRS team and the taxpayer find acceptable. Where agreement is still not reached, the IRS issues an assessment as a notice of deficiency or 90-day letter. The taxpayer then has three choices: file suit in United States Tax Court without paying the tax, pay the tax and sue for refund in regular court, or pay the tax and be done. Recourse to court can be costly and time-consuming, but is often successful. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Charlie Sheen owes the IRS. For tax year 2015 the IRS said Sheen owed nearly $5 million. Sheen claimed he could not pay the full amount. He sought an installment agreement, then an offer-in-compromise. The IRS denied both. So, in 2018 Sheen took his case to the United States Tax Court. While the case was pending, the IRS claimed Sheen owed additional monies for 2016 and 2018. Sheen combined all the cases and offered $3.1 million to settle the matter. The IRS calculated he could pay 3 or 4 times that amount. The Tax Court agreed with the IRS. Attorney Steven A. Leahy reviews this case as only a Tax Attorney who helps taxpayers with IRS collection cases can. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/steven-leahy1/message

James Halpern is a Senior Judge of the United States Tax Court. Before joining the bench, he led a varied career in tax, including time spent in private practice, academia and the federal government. In this episode of On Tax, Judge Halpern talks to Cravath partner and host Len Teti about the mentorship he offers his law clerks and what has surprised him most during his more than 30 years on the bench. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Raymond Prospero, ChFC®, is a Partner Advisor with Advice Period. Ray helps clients develop realistic financial goals, designing wealth management strategies to help preserve wealth for future generations. Ray launched his financial services career when he joined Merrill Lynch in 2010 after a legal career, where he was admitted to the United States Tax Court. While at Merrill Lynch, Ray was a Senior Vice President and a member of their Circle of Excellence recognition club, reserved for top-performing advisors nationwide. He holds a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of La Verne College of Law and earned the Chartered Financial Consultant® (ChFC®) designation from The American College of Financial Services. In our conversation, we discussed: ·        People need, but often neglect estate planning. ·        Using Right Capital, a cash flow and financial planning program that’s data driven. ·        A relationship approach is more satisfying than old-school transactional work. ·        Market awareness with the new administration. ·        Being proactive for clients. ·        The difference between a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) and a broker-dealer. Enjoy the show! Connect with Ray: Website: https://www.adviceperiod.com/?team=ray-prospero-2 LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/rcprospero Connect with Gary: Website: sbadvisors.cc/ Facebook: facebook.com/SmallBusinessAdvisors LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/gary-d-heldt-jr-388a051/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Charles Read is a CPA, IRS Advisory Council member, IRS Watchdog, and Small Business Advocate who practices in the United States Tax Court. Charles is a Vietnam War combat veteran and a decorated United States Marine Corps sergeant. He and his partner, Ruth, co-founded Custom Payroll Associates, Inc. and worked together . Charles uses his education, experience, and hard-won expertise to make connections with people at all levels of an organization. As an advisor and solutions architect, he helps businesses tackle problems by bringing about positive change.Charles Read graduated from the University of North Texas with a BBA and an MBA. Charles has published four books and is working on his fifth. He lectured small and large groups and hosted live and on-demand webinars for HR.com. He takes a number of continuing professional education courses each year as part of his CPA requirements.Website: https://jimboparis.com/​Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JimboParisYoutube: Jimbo Paris Show #6- Charles Read - YouTube Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to part 2 of our two part series with Gabriel García, CFO of DJR García Law and a dear friend of mine. DJR García is a boutique law firm providing business, regulatory, and strategy advice to health and wellness providers. In this episode, we will discuss a topic that is rarely touched on... Healthcare, Insurance & Cannabis. What pains me about this topic, and I felt Gabe as well was that we can walk into any pharmacy and pick up prescription drugs at a reasonable price (with insurance). So, if marijuana is deemed "essential" and is used for medical purposes, then why isn't the healthcare industry taking that into account? Because, cannabis isn't cheap.. The cost of marijuana buds can vary based on quality and the location of the purchase. Typically, a gram of buds can cost $5-$20; an eighth (3.5 grams) costs $20-$60; and an ounce can cost $200-$400 Concentrates are typically sold in half-gram and gram quantities and generally cost $20-$60 per gram. Expect to pay about $2-$5 per dose for edible medical marijuana items. Tincture bottles sell for $15-$50, depending on strength. About Gabriel: For the last 15 years, Mr. García has been a trusted legal advisor to leading brands in the rapidly growing health and wellness industries. An expert in corporate, regulatory, and tax issues, he also counsels boards of directors, charitable foundations, and nonprofit corporations, including the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the United Core Alliance. Prior to launching DJR García, he served as General Counsel for Natura, a vertically-integrated cannabis campus in Sacramento, where he lead efforts to acquire the 21 licenses that comprising Natura's commercial cannabis activities. Mr. García's other experience includes positions as commercial counsel for Abbott Laboratories, legal consultant for the healthcare consulting firm BDC Advisors, and a federal clerkship with the United States Tax Court. His insight on wellness innovation is routinely solicited from the press and national healthcare organizations and has earned him multiple awards from legal publishing houses such as the Theodore Tannenwald Jr. Foundation. IG: @djr_garcia https://www.djrgarcia.com Facebook Twitter: @djr_garcia *Disclaimer:Listeners of this podcast must be mindful that possessing, using, distributing and/or selling marijuana is a federal crime, and no legal advice given herein is intended to provide any guidance or assistance in violating federal law nor will it provide any guidance or assistance in complying with federal law. Please also note that nothing in this podcast is intended to be deemed advice regarding the federal, state or local tax consequences of engaging in any business in this industry.

Welcome to part 1 of our two part series with Gabriel García, CFO of DJR García Law and a dear friend of mine. DJR García is a boutique law firm providing business, regulatory, and strategy advice to health and wellness providers. In this episode, he will offer listeners insight, guidance, legal analysis of the industry and how to get some legal help on a budget (YAY!). About Gabriel: For the last 15 years, Mr. García has been a trusted legal advisor to leading brands in the rapidly growing health and wellness industries. An expert in corporate, regulatory, and tax issues, he also counsels boards of directors, charitable foundations, and nonprofit corporations, including the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and the United Core Alliance. Prior to launching DJR García, he served as General Counsel for Natura, a vertically-integrated cannabis campus in Sacramento, where he lead efforts to acquire the 21 licenses that comprising Natura's commercial cannabis activities. Mr. García's other experience includes positions as commercial counsel for Abbott Laboratories, legal consultant for the healthcare consulting firm BDC Advisors, and a federal clerkship with the United States Tax Court. His insight on wellness innovation is routinely solicited from the press and national healthcare organizations and has earned him multiple awards from legal publishing houses such as the Theodore Tannenwald Jr. Foundation. IG: @djr_garcia https://www.djrgarcia.com Facebook Twitter: @djr_garcia *Disclaimer:Listeners of this podcast must be mindful that possessing, using, distributing and/or selling marijuana is a federal crime, and no legal advice given herein is intended to provide any guidance or assistance in violating federal law nor will it provide any guidance or assistance in complying with federal law. Please also note that nothing in this podcast is intended to be deemed advice regarding the federal, state or local tax consequences of engaging in any business in this industry.

About Steve Klitznerhttps://floridataxsolvers.comEmail:  Steve@FloridaTaxSolvers.comPhone: 305.682.1118Steven N. Klitzner graduated from the University of Miami School of Law in 1979 with a Juris Doctorate degree. He was admitted to the Florida Bar that same year.Mr. Klitzner is admitted to the United States Supreme Court, United States Tax Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.He has been awarded an AV rating by Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory, the highest rating of the publication.Mr. Klitzner is a member of the American Society of IRS Problem Solvers. He is a member of the Advisory Board and Consulting Member of the Tax Freedom Institute, an association of tax professionals in defense of taxpayer rights. These memberships help him stay current with the law and enable him to protect your rights.The American Society of Tax Problems Solvers recognized Mr. Klitzner with its Top Practitioner award.

Modern Tax Law Makes Punitive Damages Only For The Benefit Of The Lawyers https://zalma.com/blog In Gary L. Greenberg and Irene Greenberg v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 25420-07. (U.S.T.C. 01/24/2011) the United States Tax Court dealt with a recipient of insurance bad faith punitive damages who tried to avoid tax on the award. As a result, the recipient of the award of punitive damages for the bad faith conduct of their insurer, resulted in a major tax consequence and not the windfall the plaintiffs thought they received. Because the Greenbergs could not convince the Tax Court of their position the Court not only slapped the Greenbergs down in affirming a tax deficiency of over $1 million, but further sanctioned them with an accuracy-related penalty, because the taxpayers had neither substantial authority, nor reasonable cause underlying their posture on the damage award. The Tax Court noted that the definition of gross income broadly encompasses any addition to a taxpayer's wealth. Therefore, absent an exception by another statutory provision, damage awards from a lawsuit must be included in gross income. In general, exclusions from income are narrowly construed by the tax court. The Greenbergs argued that the punitive damages they received in their insurance bad faith case may be excluded from income under section 104(a) (3) primarily because punitive damages could not have been awarded without the insurance policy. The Tax Court discounted the “but for” argument, and found it was discredited by the Supreme Court's analysis of section 104(a)(2) in O'Gilvie v. United States, 519 U.S. 79 (1996). In that case the Supreme Court considered an earlier version of section 104(a)(2) that excluded from income “the amount of any damages received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal injuries or sickness”. The Court reasoned that both the statute and the intention of Congress to exclude only those damages that compensate for personal injuries or sickness indicated that the exclusion does not include punitive damages. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma/support

Did you know you could take advantage of Tax Incentives As Low as zero percent? And enjoy life while Sipping Bacardi on the white sandy Beaches in the Caribbean? Giovanni Mendez is our guest on this episode and he is going to teach YOU how to keep more of your profits, Tax-free wealth, How to get started TODAY, What assets you can invest in under Tax Incentives Act 20 & 22, The application process and Costs Involved, Housing & Residency Requirements. We will also discuss how this island is thriving and OPEN FOR BUSINESS! I was lucky enough to call this island my home for 4 years, and you can too! More about Giovanni Mendez: Extensive experience as a corporate and tax attorney, including compliance, financial reporting, tax preparation, and regulatory matters. Admitted to the Puerto Rico Bar and United States Tax Court, Giovanni has advised clients at both the State and Federal levels. His clients have included Fortune 500 companies, pharmaceutical companies, telecommunications firms, financial services companies, e-commerce, technology and software companies, private equity investors, blockchain technology companies, and high net-worth individuals.   Connect with Joe Robert Enjoyed the podcast? Be sure to subscribe on Apple Podcasts and leave a review. We love to hear your feedback and we would appreciate it for you to help us spread the word

This session's guest is Van Carlson with Strategic Risk Alternatives (https://strategicriskalternatives.com/). Mr. Carlson has over twenty five years of experience within the risk management industry. Van began his career with Farmers Insurance Group as an agent; eventually growing his book to be among the largest in his home state of Idaho. Van specializes in advising clients how best to manage risk. The Captive Insurance company is a frequently used product he recommends for, implements and manages for his clients. This risk management tool is governed by 831(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. A few take-aways from this session:The use of a Captive is a great tool to provide for protection of a businesses cash flow that may not be available though standard insurance policies.Coverage offered through the Captive is in addition to the standard insurance coverage that you would purchase to manage risk. The insurance premiums paid to the captive are tax deductible to the insured company, up to $2.2 million.The insurance premiums received by the captive are not taxable revenue up to $2.2 million per insured.A captive can be an optimal tool to provide business interruption coverage for events like the COVID-19 pandemic. The Basics of the 831(b) Election for Captives January 25, 2017By P. Bruce Wright, M. Kristan Rizzolo, Saren Goldner, and Christopher W. SchoenSutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP Section 831(b) was added to the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) in 1986 as part of an effort to more closely align the taxation of mutual and stock property and casualty ("P&C") insurance companies. Prior law provided for three layers of taxation for mutual P&C insurance companies depending on the quantum of their gross receipts but not for stock P&C insurance companies. Under section 831 as enacted in 1986, in general, both stock and mutual insurance companies that are not life insurance companies compute their tax as provided in IRC section 11, subject to the special rules for calculating taxable income that are contained in part II of subchapter L. In addition, the special rules that had applied to small mutual P&C insurance companies were extended to all small nonlife insurance companies.Under section 831(b), small nonlife insurance companies that meet the requirements, including a premium limitations amount, may elect to be subject to an alternative tax based only on taxable investment income. Under this alternative tax, the underwriting profits of the electing insurance company are exempt from federal income tax.In part as a result of perceived abuses, Congress changed the requirements for qualification under section 831(b) effective for taxable years ending after December 31, 2016, and at the same time increased the premium limitation amount. Section 831(b) now requires an electing company to(1) be an insurance company; (2) have net written premiums (or, if greater, direct written premiums) for the taxable year that do not exceed $2.2 million;1(3) meet the diversification requirements described below; and(4) make or have in effect, an election to be taxed under section 831(b).The diversification requirements were added by Congress as anti-abuse measures to address estate and gift tax evasion issues; the amendments do not address federal income tax concerns. In general, to satisfy the diversification requirements, no one policyholder2 may pay more than 20 percent of a section 831(b) company's annual net written premiums (or, if greater, direct written premiums). For purposes of applying the 20 percent limitation, the amendments apply attribution rules under which all policyholders that are related within the meaning of sections 267(b) and 707(b), or are members of the same controlled group, are treated as a single policyholder. The new provisions also include an alternative diversification requirement that is an ownership-based test. Under the ownership test, the ownership of a section 831(b) company by "specified holders" (as defined below) must not be greater than (by more than a 2 percent de minimis margin) the ownership of the business or assets being insured. More specifically, an insurance company will have met this alternative diversification test if each specified holder that is an owner of the section 831(b) company has no greater interest in the section 831(b) company than he or she has in the insured business or assets (the "specified assets"). A specified holder is any individual who is a spouse or lineal descendant (including by adoption) of an individual who holds an interest (directly or indirectly) in the specified assets being insured.In connection with amending the eligibility requirements for making an election to be subject to tax under section 831(b), Congress also added new annual information reporting requirements on electing companies, leaving the specifics of the required information up to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  In November 2016, shortly before the new provisions became effective for most electing companies, the IRS issued Notice 2016–66 indicating that certain section 831(b) companies are "transactions of interest" requiring information reporting under sections 6011 and 6111 as "reportable transactions." Notice 2016–66 provides that section 831(b) electing companies meeting the following requirements are "transactions of interest."(1) A person ("A") directly or indirectly owns an interest in an entity (the "Insured") that conducts a trade or business;(2) A, the Insured, or related person(s) directly or indirectly own at least 20 percent of the voting power or value of the section 831(b) electing company that contracts with Insured (or an intermediary) in a transaction that the section 831(b) electing company and the Insured treat as insurance or reinsurance of Insured; and(3) Either(a) section 831(b) electing company's incurred liabilities for losses and claims administration during the most recent 5 taxable years (or such shorter period if the company has been in existence only for such shorter period) are less than 70 percent of the company's premiums earned less policyholder dividends for the same period or, (b.) during the same 5-year period, section 831(b) electing company has directly or indirectly made available or otherwise conveyed funds to A, the Insured or related person(s) in a transaction that did not result in taxable income or gain to the recipient of the funds.Pursuant to Notice 2016–66, "material advisors" and all participants to the transactions are required to disclose information about the transactions to the IRS, including a description of the "insurance" coverage provided by the captive, the names and contact information of actuaries and underwriters, an explanation of how premium amounts were determined, a description of claims, and a description of the captive's assets. The initial report, for transactions from prior open years, originally was due January 30, 2017, but Notice 2017–08 extended the deadline for filing that initial report to May 1, 2017.In February 2015, the IRS included section 831(b) companies on its "Dirty Dozen" list of tax scams. The IRS also has numerous audits of section 831(b) companies under way and cases docketed in the United States Tax Court. One of the concerns of the IRS is whether the transactions of section 831(b) electing companies are properly characterized as insurance. In order to be treated as insurance for federal tax purposes, a transaction must meet a four-part test that requires the presence of an insurance risk, risk shifting, and risk distribution and the recognition of the transaction as insurance in its commonly accepted sense (for more information on this topic, see "When Are Premiums Paid to a Captive Insurance Company Deductible for Federal Income Tax Purposes?").P. Bruce Wright, M. Kristan Rizzolo, and Saren Goldner are partners and Christopher W. Schoen is counsel in the tax department of the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP. Mr. Wright and Ms. Goldner are located in New York, and Ms. Rizzolo and Mr. Schoen are located in Washington.The $2.2 million maximum is subject to increases for inflation, using 2013 as the base year for calculation.To date, there is not guidance on what is meant by a "policyholder," although Congress has proposed a technical corrections bill that would make it clear that a "policyholder" refers to the original direct insured. The Benefits of Captive Insurance: Pros and Cons published by Alternative Risk Resources on their websiteFlexibility in setting the cost of premiumsYou may cover a huge variety of risksYou have more control!They foster a greater safety cultureYou get ongoing educationRisk management actually becomes profitableCompanies need to weigh the pros and cons of captive insurance to understand the potential benefit of insurance captives. Captive insurance allows your business to limit risk and retain what would have been insurance company profits. Unused premiums and income generated by your captive insurance company are returned to your business, turning what used to be an expense into a profit generating program. Alternative Risk Resources’ group captive brokers make the process of understanding and joining a group captive insurance company a turnkey process.Explaining the Basics of Group Captive Insurance Access to underwriting profits and investment income are the most tangible benefits of joining a group captive program. The biggest benefit to joining, though, is the intangible safety culture captives foster.Accidents and losses change from being something a business accepts will happen to avoidable events. Everybody in an organization insured through a captive becomes more safety conscious, changing the focus from minimizing claims to actively preventing accidents.Long-term, proven cost savings and the increased profitability of group captive insurance programs make captives an attractive risk mitigation and investment solution for qualifying businesses. With a group captive, your company is in control of its insurance plan with underwriting profits and unused premiums returned as profit. A captive insurance program is a company providing insurance coverage and benefits exclusively to its member owners.The businesses paying premiums are the same entities owning and profiting from the insurance company’s success.Fewer claims and invested unused premiums translate directly into profit for the group captive’s member owners. The bottom line advantages over traditional insurance programs ensure that eventually every company qualifying for captive insurance will participate. The lack of knowledge about how group captive insurance programs work is often the only reason a qualified company is not a captive insured entity. Alternative Risk Resources’ professional brokers are here to help you understand the benefits of captive insurance.

HodlCast Ep. 87 with former IRS Tax Attorney Dashiell Shapiro We discussed the letters from the IRS, the IRS’s likely strategy, similar to what was used for the Swiss Bank Accounts, to encourage people to self-report their crypto holdings and pay taxes. Check out his writing: https://stanford-jblp.pubpub.org/pub/crypto-irs-enforcement You can find Dashiell on Twitter: @DashiellShapiro You can email him at: dshapiro@sflaw.com Dashiell’s Bio: Mr. Shapiro advises individuals and business entities on a broad range of federal, state, and international tax planning and tax controversy matters. A native of the San Francisco area, he received his undergraduate degree and law degree from the University of Chicago. At the law school, he served as Comment Editor for the University of Chicago Legal Forum. Mr. Shapiro has successfully represented individuals and companies at all stages of tax controversy, from sensitive audit inquiries to administrative protests and appeals. He has significant experience litigating matters before California’s Board of Equalization and Office of Tax Appeals, the United States Tax Court, and in federal district courts in both civil and criminal tax matters. He has obtained favorable outcomes for taxpayers in a variety of settings, including no-change audit determinations, transitional relief acceptance within the Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), and 100% concessions of tax and penalties in IRS audit examinations and appeals. In 2014, he appeared before the California State Board of Equalization and obtained the Board’s full reversal of a $10 million constructive receipt determination made by the Franchise Tax Board. He appeared again before the Board of Equalization in 2017 and obtained a decision overturning California’s policy of imposing sales and use tax on destination management companies, and the full reversal of taxes, penalties, and interest. Prior to moving into private practice, Mr. Shapiro spent a total of seven years at the U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division litigating tax controversies in federal courts across the country. At the Department of Justice, he gained broad experience in all aspects of tax controversy practice in federal district and bankruptcy courts, including trial work and evidentiary hearings, depositions and written discovery, pleadings, motions practice, appeals, and settlements. He regularly handled a docket of 60 to 70 cases, and worked on a variety of matters including tax shelters, statutes of limitation, employment tax disputes, tax liens and collection cases, international tax disputes, summons enforcement in criminal matters, interpretation and defense of Treasury Regulations, and many others. For his achievements, the Department of Justice awarded Dashiell with a Special Commendation Award and an Outstanding Trial Attorney Award. Mr. Shapiro regularly publishes articles on tax litigation, the tax treatment of cryptocurrency transactions, and the taxation of financial products and investments.

Many have been buzzing about Lender Management, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2017-246) since it was decided in December 2017, only days before the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which we've talked so much about. Guest John Hackney—one of three attorneys representing Lender Management, LLC in the case before the United States Tax Court—joins host Damien Martin for an insightful discussion on key aspects of the case and possible planning strategies now that we're about 18 months in. TIME STAMPS OF WHAT'S COVERED About John Hackney [1:30] Why the Lender Management decision is significant [3:03] The distinction between an IRC §162 trade or business and §212 investment activity [5:24] Importance of good, well-documented facts [7:23] What it takes to rise to the level of a §162 trade or business [8:04] How Lender Management, LLC overcame an argument that it was managing the investments of the Lender family [9:58] Compensation through a profits interest is a key component in the structure [12:50] Registration requirements under securities laws [16:06] What John is seeing and hearing after the decision [17:18] How the TCJA increased interest in the Lender Management decision [19:11] Are many family offices organizing or restructuring in light of the decision? [19:58] How to evaluate a Lender Management, LLC-type structure [21:16] BIO FOR GUEST John Hackney is a shareholder at Chamberlain Hrdlicka Attorneys at Law in Atlanta, Georgia, where he represents clients in disputes with the IRS and other taxing authorities. John has extensive experience in the tax arena that precedes his law practice. He has a master's degree in accounting with a tax concentration. Prior to attending law school he worked as a CPA for PwC in its tax department where he focused on compliance work for a large private equity client and individuals. Connect with John on LinkedIn ADDITIONAL RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE EPISODE Read the decision: Lender Management, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2017-246) Watch our companion video: Rental Activities as a Trade or Business Learn more about how BKD can help with BKD Family Office Services GET MORE “SIMPLY TAX” We're excited to now also provide video content to strengthen your tax mind! Check it out on our new YouTube channel. A complete archive of our episodes is available on our website and YouTube playlist. We'd love to hear from you! Email feedback and questions to SimplyTax@bkd.com. Connect with Damien on social media! LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube

Many have been buzzing about Lender Management, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2017-246) since it was decided in December 2017, only days before the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), which we’ve talked so much about. Guest John Hackney—one of three attorneys representing Lender Management, LLC in the case before the United States Tax Court—joins host Damien Martin for an insightful discussion on key aspects of the case and possible planning strategies now that we’re about 18 months in. TIME STAMPS OF WHAT’S COVERED About John Hackney [1:30] Why the Lender Management decision is significant [3:03] The distinction between an IRC §162 trade or business and §212 investment activity [5:24] Importance of good, well-documented facts [7:23] What it takes to rise to the level of a §162 trade or business [8:04] How Lender Management, LLC overcame an argument that it was managing the investments of the Lender family [9:58] Compensation through a profits interest is a key component in the structure [12:50] Registration requirements under securities laws [16:06] What John is seeing and hearing after the decision [17:18] How the TCJA increased interest in the Lender Management decision [19:11] Are many family offices organizing or restructuring in light of the decision? [19:58] How to evaluate a Lender Management, LLC-type structure [21:16] BIO FOR GUEST John Hackney is a shareholder at Chamberlain Hrdlicka Attorneys at Law in Atlanta, Georgia, where he represents clients in disputes with the IRS and other taxing authorities. John has extensive experience in the tax arena that precedes his law practice. He has a master’s degree in accounting with a tax concentration. Prior to attending law school he worked as a CPA for PwC in its tax department where he focused on compliance work for a large private equity client and individuals. Connect with John on LinkedIn ADDITIONAL RESOURCES MENTIONED IN THE EPISODE Read the decision: Lender Management, LLC v. Commissioner (T.C. Memo 2017-246) Watch our companion video: Rental Activities as a Trade or Business Learn more about how BKD can help with BKD Family Office Services GET MORE “SIMPLY TAX” We’re excited to now also provide video content to strengthen your tax mind! Check it out on our new YouTube channel. A complete archive of our episodes is available on our website and YouTube playlist. We’d love to hear from you! Email feedback and questions to SimplyTax@bkd.com. Connect with Damien on social media! LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | YouTube

Scott W. Taylor is a principal with the firm, SmolenPlevy. He is a member of the Virginia State Bar and is admitted to the United States Tax Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Mr. Taylor earned his Juris Doctor Cum Laude from the George Mason University School of Law […]

Host Damien Martin sits down with BKD's James Anderson to cut through the complexities of the loss limitation rules to demonstrate why you need an understanding of both new and existing tax law to apply these rules after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Join Damien and James as they break down the hobby and passive activity loss rules, explain how these rules applied in a recent United States Tax Court case and discuss changes under the TCJA. TIMESTAMPS OF WHAT'S COVERED [01:06] Overview of the hobby loss rules [02:22] How hobby losses changed under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) [03:50] Robison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-88 [05:39] Applying the nine tests under the hobby loss rules in Robison [08:13] Applying the hobby loss rules in real life [15:08] Tax basis and at-risk loss limitations [17:21] Overview of the passive activity loss rules and how they applied in Robison [23:24] What losing the case means for the taxpayers in Robison [25:40] The new excess business loss limitation under the TCJA [27:41] This was a relatively simple case [30:20] The TCJA layered on top of the existing tax law [34:00] Why tax accountants are popular at cocktail parties [35:52] James' key takeaways from this case [38:37] Loss limitations and year-end planning BIO FOR GUEST James Anderson is a partner in BKD's Lincoln, Nebraska practice and a member of the firm's National Construction & Real Estate Group, National Manufacturing & Distribution Group and tax committee. James is experienced in providing corporate and individual taxation assistance to construction companies, financial institutions, manufacturers and retailers across the Midwest. He also consults with clients regarding accounting method changes, multistate taxation, choice-of-entity analyses, tax controversy support and business combinations. Connect with James on LinkedIn ADDITIONAL RESOURCES An Interview With David Kirk: Beware The New Excess Business Loss Limitation by Tony Nitti (Forbes) GET MORE “SIMPLY TAX” A complete archive of our episodes is available on our website and YouTube playlist. We'd love to hear from you! Email feedback and questions to SimplyTax@bkd.com. Connect with Damien on social media! LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram

Host Damien Martin sits down with BKD’s James Anderson to cut through the complexities of the loss limitation rules to demonstrate why you need an understanding of both new and existing tax law to apply these rules after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). Join Damien and James as they break down the hobby and passive activity loss rules, explain how these rules applied in a recent United States Tax Court case and discuss changes under the TCJA. TIMESTAMPS OF WHAT’S COVERED [01:06] Overview of the hobby loss rules [02:22] How hobby losses changed under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) [03:50] Robison v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2018-88 [05:39] Applying the nine tests under the hobby loss rules in Robison [08:13] Applying the hobby loss rules in real life [15:08] Tax basis and at-risk loss limitations [17:21] Overview of the passive activity loss rules and how they applied in Robison [23:24] What losing the case means for the taxpayers in Robison [25:40] The new excess business loss limitation under the TCJA [27:41] This was a relatively simple case [30:20] The TCJA layered on top of the existing tax law [34:00] Why tax accountants are popular at cocktail parties [35:52] James’ key takeaways from this case [38:37] Loss limitations and year-end planning BIO FOR GUEST James Anderson is a partner in BKD’s Lincoln, Nebraska practice and a member of the firm’s National Construction & Real Estate Group, National Manufacturing & Distribution Group and tax committee. James is experienced in providing corporate and individual taxation assistance to construction companies, financial institutions, manufacturers and retailers across the Midwest. He also consults with clients regarding accounting method changes, multistate taxation, choice-of-entity analyses, tax controversy support and business combinations. Connect with James on LinkedIn ADDITIONAL RESOURCES An Interview With David Kirk: Beware The New Excess Business Loss Limitation by Tony Nitti (Forbes) GET MORE “SIMPLY TAX” A complete archive of our episodes is available on our website and YouTube playlist. We’d love to hear from you! Email feedback and questions to SimplyTax@bkd.com. Connect with Damien on social media! LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram

Impeachment: A serious punishment for serious corruption. In this episode, learn why Congress has begun the process of impeaching IRS Commissioner John Koskinen and how his impeachment would prevent light from being shined upon dark money in politics. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute with PayPal or Bitcoin; click the PayPal "Make it Monthly" checkbox to create a monthly subscription Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Bill Outlines H.R. 5253: Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act Prohibits tax exempt organizations from being required to disclose any information about their contributors, including the person's name, address, or the amount of their contribution or gift on their annual tax returns. Passed the House of Representatives 240-182 Author: Peter Roskam (IL-6) Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5053 – Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act By Representative Peter Roskam and 25 cosponsors, Executive Office of the President, June 13, 2016. H.Res. 737: Condemning and censuring John A. Koskinen, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue Suggests that John Koskinen should resign or be fired by the President Suggests that John Koskinen be denied his all of his retirement payments from the Federal government S. 1728: Access to Court Challenges for Exempt Status Seekers (ACCESS) Act of 2015 Allows the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, or the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia to determine qualifications for 501(c)4 status if the IRS hasn't made the determination after 270 days. S. 1578: Taxpayer Bill of Rights Enhancement Act of 2015 Congress must be notified why the IRS Commissioner decides NOT to fire an employee Requires IRS employee emails to be stored for 15 years and then be stored in the National Archives Quadruples criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosures and inspections. Prohibits IRS employees from using personal email accounts for official business Gives organizations the ability to challenge their denials of tax exempt status in court S.942: Fair Treatment for All Gifts Act Expands the tax deduction for charitable giving to include gifts to 501(c)4 organizations S. 949: Small Business Taxpayer Bill of Rights Defines a "small business" as one that makes less than $50 million a year Increases fines for unauthorized inspection or disclosure of tax returns by 10 times the current penalties Institutes mandatory unpaid leave for at least 30 days for any IRS employee that reviews an application for tax exempt status "using any methodology that applies disproportionate scrutiny to any applicant based on the ideology expressed in the name or purpose of the organization". Allows the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, or the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia to determine qualifications for 501(c)4 status if the IRS hasn't made the determination after 270 days. Orders the Treasury Inspector General to Investigate criteria used to evaluate applications for tax exempt status to determine whether the criteria discriminates against taxpayers on the basis of race, religion, or political ideology. S. 283: Stop Targeting of Political Beliefs by the IRS Act of 2015 The standard used to determine whether an organization is a 501(c)4 social welfare organization that was used on January 1, 2010 will be the standard used, and it cannot be changed before February 28, 2017. Speaker Paul Ryan's version of this bill prohibits the standard from changing before December 31, 2017. Sound Clip Sources Hearing: Examining the Allegations of Misconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Part II, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2016. Hearing: Conduct of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, May 24, 2016. Hearing: Internal Revenue Service Targeting Investigation, Senate Finance Committee, October 27, 2015. Additional Reading Article: Freedom Caucus Ups Pressure to Impeach IRS Commissioner By Daniel Newhauser, Government Executive, June 30, 2016. Article: IRS Targeting Scandal: Citizens United, Lois Lerner And The $20M Tax Saga That Won't Go Away By Kelly Phillips Erb, Forbes, June 24, 2016. Article: The Show Trial of IRS Commissioner John Koskinen By Norm Ornstein, The Atlantic, June 22, 2016. Article: IRS Chief Koskinen Fights First Appointee Impeachment Since 1876 By Lynnley Browning, Chicago Tribune, June 21, 2016. Article: House Approves Koch-backed Bill to Shield Donors’ Names By Fredreka Schouten, USA Today, June 14, 2016. Article: Appropriations Bill ‘Handcuffs'IRS on Political Group Activities By Colleen Murphy, Bloomberg Bureau of National Affairs, June 13, 2016. Article: How Crossroads GPS Beat the IRS and Became a Social Welfare Group By Robert Maguire, Open Secrets, February 12, 2016. Article: Inside the Billion-Dollar Battle for Puerto Rico’s Future By Jonathan Mahler and Nicholas Confessore, The New York Times, December 19, 2015. Article: Exelon Amends Reports Concerning Contributions To Trade Groups By Michael Beckel, The Center for Public Integrity, January 29, 2014. Article: Follow the Corporate Cash Flow to Nonprofits By Chris Zubak-Skees, The Center for Public Integrity, January 16, 2014. Article: At Least 1 in 4 Dark Money Dollars in 2012 Had Koch Links By Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets, December 3, 2013. Article: The IRS Tea Party Scandal, Explained By Andy Kroll, Mother Jones, November 21, 2013. Additional Information SourceWatch: 60 Plus Association OpenSecrets: Political Nonprofits (Dark Money) Reports IRS Return Selection: Wage and Investment Division Should Define Audit Objectives and Refine Other Internal Controls, United States Government Accountability Office, December 2015. Finance Committee Releases Bipartisan IRS Report By Aaron Forbes and Julia Lawless, United States Senate Committee on Finance, August 5, 2015. Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review By Treasury Inspector General For Tax Administration, May 14, 2013. The Internal Revenue Service's Processing Of 501(c)(3) And 501(c)(4) Applications For Tax-Exempt Status Submitted By ‘‘Political Advocacy’’ By The United States Senate Committee on Finance, August 5, 2015. Organizations From 2010–2013 Part 1 The Report Part 2 Letters Part 3 Emails Part 4 Documents Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

A little about our guests. Craig was born in Indianapolis, IN and grew up in Orlando, FL in the middle of seven other brothers and sisters. Craig has twin brother. Belsis came to the US when she was 4 years as part of the Mariel Boat Lift in 1980. Belsis grew up in Chicago and Hialeah, FL. The opposite of Craig as an only child. Belsis and Craig are married and have been in business together for 10 years. They have 2 boys, ages 17 and 14. Their younger son looks like he will be following in his parents’ entrepreneurial footsteps. Belsis is looking forward (in about 10 years or so) to having granddaughters to dress up! A little about their business. Craig is an Enrolled Agent and has written 12 books on taxation as well as numerous articles in national publications on business and taxes. He has been practicing accounting for 22 years and can practice before the Internal Revenue Service as well as being admitted to the United States Tax Court. Belsis is a Certified Public Bookkeeper and a QuickBooks Professional Advisor. But her real passion and main focus at CWSEAPA is as the tech guru. She created the websites for the company (filled with great tax and business information) and is the communications and public relations for the firm. One piece of advice (the nutshell version) Play to your strengths and be very patient. Watch baseball – watching baseball makes you more patient. Reading Material How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie - http://amzn.to/1UaDuCb Selling the Invisible by Harry Beckwith - http://amzn.to/1V5n7q5 Many, Many Tax books by Craig Smalley – http://amzn.to/1XoYgw6 Get in Touch with Our Guests http://www.CWSEAPA.comCraig@CWSEAPA.comBelsis@CWSEAPA.comTwitter - @CWSEAPAhttps://Facebook.com/CWSEAPA and https://Facebook.com/TaxCrisisCenter

In Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner (9/15/2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 45% valuation discount for fractional interests in works of art, reversing a decision of the United States Tax Court. In this podcast, Bob Keebler and Jonathan Blattmachr discuss the case and its implications for planning. 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 Estate of Elkins v. Commissioner (9/15/2014), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 45% valuation discount for fractional interests in works of art, reversing a decision of the United States Tax Court. In this podcast, Bob Keebler and Jonathan Blattmachr discuss the case and its implications for planning. 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

Edward Mendlowitz is a certified public accountant and a partner with WithumSmith+Brown located in New Brunswick, NJ. He is the author of eighteen professional books, and the editor of four others. Mr. Mendlowitz has written hundreds of business and financial articles and has been quoted in almost every major newspaper in the United States, and is on the panel of experts for Bottom Line/Personal newsletter. He has taught in the MBA program at Fairleigh Dickinson University, and is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has accredited him in business valuation, certified him in financial forensics and as a personal financial specialist, and presented him with the Lawler Award for the best article in the 2001 Journal of Accountancy.         Show Keywords: CPA Accountant Accounting  firm management practice management Bookkeeping  Bookkeeper Tax

Edward Mendlowitz is a certified public accountant and a partner with WithumSmith+Brown located in New Brunswick, NJ. He is the author of eighteen professional books, and the editor of four others. Mr. Mendlowitz has written hundreds of business and financial articles and has been quoted in almost every major newspaper in the United States, and is on the panel of experts for Bottom Line/Personal newsletter. He has taught in the MBA program at Fairleigh Dickinson University, and is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants has accredited him in business valuation, certified him in financial forensics and as a personal financial specialist, and presented him with the Lawler Award for the best article in the 2001 Journal of Accountancy.   Show Keywords: CPA Accountant Accounting  firm management practice management Bookkeeping  Bookkeeper Tax

  Tiffany L. Hamil's practice is focused on providing tax-related legal services to individuals, businesses, and executives.   Ms. Hamil received her Bachelor of Arts degree from Southern Methodist University and her Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Texas Wesleyan School of Law.  Thereafter, she attended the University of Florida, one of the top three tax programs in the nation and obtained her Master of Laws degree in Taxation.     Ms. Hamil is admitted to practice law in Texas and before the United States Tax Court.  Ms. Hamil is also a member of the American Bar Association, the Texas Bar Association, and the Dallas Bar Association.   Ms. Hamil is also an adjunct professor at a local private universtity.  She teaches undergraduate courses in  Federal Income Taxation, Business Law I, and Business Law II.  She also teaches graduate courses in Corporate Tax and Partnership Tax. 

Nick Nemeth, Esq.: Nick Nemeth is a Texas attorney who has been in practice for the past fifteen years. He is a member of the State Bar of Texas and is admitted to practice before the United States Tax Court. He is also duly admitted as an attorney and counselor of the Supreme Court of the United States. His law practice focuses solely on helping individuals and businesses resolve a wide range of IRS issues. Nick has been featured on Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC as well as in USA Today, CNBC, CBS Money Watch and Yahoo Finance. Shaun Walker - HERO|farm is a marketing strategy and design firm based in New Orleans created on the philosophy of "Do great work for good people. Founded in 2009, the agency is the brainchild of two advertising executives Reid Stone and Shaun Walker. Joe Nicassio - author of Rapid Results Marketing   Richard O'Malley - He is considered by many has a key component in building some of the most popular regional events.  Several years ago, he created The O'Malley Project as a way for planners to source all the event needs thru one operational hub.

This PodCast examines a difference in application of IRC "162(k) between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court given the Tax Court's decision in Ralston Purina v. Commissioner, 131 TC No. 4 that dealt with the taxpayer's attempt to claim a deduction for dividends paid to participants in its ESOP when it had to redeem certain stock from the ESOP to pay out terminated participants in that plan. The materials can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-15_ESOP.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 a difference in application of IRC "162(k) between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court given the Tax Court's decision in Ralston Purina v. Commissioner, 131 TC No. 4 that dealt with the taxpayer's attempt to claim a deduction for dividends paid to participants in its ESOP when it had to redeem certain stock from the ESOP to pay out terminated participants in that plan. The materials can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-15_ESOP.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 a difference in application of IRC "162(k) between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court given the Tax Court's decision in Ralston Purina v. Commissioner, 131 TC No. 4 that dealt with the taxpayer's attempt to claim a deduction for dividends paid to participants in its ESOP when it had to redeem certain stock from the ESOP to pay out terminated participants in that plan. The materials can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-15_ESOP.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 this week at a difference in application of IRC §162(k) between the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Tax Court given the Tax Court's decision in Ralston Purina v. Commissioner, 131 TC No. 4 that dealt with the taxpayer's attempt to claim a deduction for dividends paid to participants in its ESOP when it had to redeem certain stock from the ESOP to pay out terminated participants in that plan.The materials can be downloaded from http://www.edzollars.com/2008-09-15_ESOP.pdf .The podcast is sponsored by Leimberg Information Services, located on the web at http://www.leimbergservices.com .