Sunday, February 2, 2014
- Accounting Web, Super Bowl Money and Tax Facts You May Not Know
- Canada Free Press, Super Bowl or Super Taxes?
- Fox 31 Denver, Peyton Manning’s Financial Incentive to Win? Avoiding 101% Tax on Super Bowl Bonus
- Fox Business, New Jersey 'Jock Tax' Tackles Super Bowl Earnings
- New Jersey Newsroom, Super Bowl 2014: N.J. Benefits From Big Game’s Jock Tax
- Newark Star-Ledger, NJ Gives NFL Super Tax Break for Super Bowl, and Pays for Security
- Rush Limbaugh, The Jock Tax -- and Other Super Bowl News
Monday, January 20, 2014
Thursday, December 26, 2013
Forbes: Mark Zuckerberg's $2 Billion Tax Bill Double Last Year, Higher Than Most Billionaries, by Robert W. Wood:
- Wall Street Journal, Zuckerberg to Pocket $1 Billion in Facebook Stock Sale
Prior TaxProf Blog coverage:
- Will Mark Zuckerberg Ever Pay Taxes Again? (Aug. 6, 2012)
- McCaffery: Mark Zuckerberg May Never Pay Taxes Again (April 10, 2013)
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Friday, December 13, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Monday, December 9, 2013
- The Daily Mail, 'I Got a Receipt!' MC Hammer Takes to Twitter to Dispute Reports He Owes $800,000 in Back Taxes
- Forbes, IRS To Rapper: It's Hammertime!
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Washington Post, Tina Turner Formally ‘Relinquishes’ U.S. Citizenship:
For the difference between relinquishing and renouncing U.S. citizenship, see here. As this detailed post makes clear, the tax consequences are the same whether one relinquishes or renounces U.S. citizenship. Previous press coverage suggested that Ms. Turner's actions may be motivated in part by a desire to escape the new FATCA regime.
(Hat Tip: Walter Schwidetzky.)
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Ty Warner, CEO of Ty Inc., which makes Beanie Babies, has agreed to plead guilty to tax evasion and pay $53.6 million in penalties in one of the largest offshore tax evasion cases in history. He tried to enter the IRS's Offshore Voluntary Disclosure in 2009 but was rejected because he was already under investogation.
- DOJ Press Release
- Federal Tax Crimes
- Tax Update Blog
- USA Today
- Wall Street Journal
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Following up on my previous post, NFL.com: Tax Issues for Manziel Raised From Alleged Autograph Income:
- The Big Lead, Could Johnny Manziel Face IRS Scrutiny Over the Autograph Allegations?
- Texas Tax Talk, Could Johnny Football Go To Jail?
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Bloomberg, How Wal-Mart’s Waltons Maintain Their Billionaire Fortune, by Zachary R. Mider:
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
The NCAA and Texas A&M yesterday agreed on the suspension of Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Johnny Manziel for the first half of Saturday's season-opening game at Rice for violating NCAA bylaw 22.214.171.124, which states that student-athletes cannot permit their names or likenesses to be used for commercial purposes, including to advertise, recommend or promote sales of commercial products. or accept payment for the use of their names or likenesses.
Louisville Courier-Journal, Maybe IRS Should Take a Look at Johnny Manziel, by Tim Sullivan:
Thursday, August 22, 2013
My nominee for tax headline of the year is from Kelly Phillips Erb: Michael Jackson's Estate to IRS: Beat It:
- Accounting Today, Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Dispute over Tax Bill
- Bloomberg, Michael Jackson’s Estate Challenges IRS in Tax Dispute
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Detroit Free Press, IRS Lawyers Defend $2B Tax Bill to Bill Davidson Estate:
- Accounting Web, Death Tax Grasps for More of William Davidson's Wealth
Monday, July 22, 2013
Following up on my previous post, James Gandolfini's Will Is a 'Tax Disaster': New York Times, A Public Debate Over the Wisdom of Gandolfini’s Will, by Paul Sullivan:
[A] few weeks after he died, the discussion shifted to his will, which, unlike the wills of most wealthy people quickly became public. Almost immediately, many experts found fault with its contents, saying it was so unwisely constructed it could lead to lawsuits from his heirs.
And then there was the estate tax bill — estimated at a whopping $30 million, nearly half of his reported net worth of $70 million all because of supposedly bad tax planning.... [I]t seemed downright bizarre — at least to me — that he might not have had sound financial advice.
Was this true? Were the numbers accurate? Did any of these commentators know what they were talking about? At first blush it certainly seemed to me that there indeed were serious problems with the will. But before I formed my final opinion, I decided to call Roger S. Haber, Mr. Gandolfini’s lawyer, who drafted the will and is one of its executors. In “Sopranos” parlance, he was Mr. Gandolfini’s consigliere in life and was the man, after his death, who was bearing the brunt of the estate tax ire. ...
He told me that Mr. Gandolfini knew the difference between a probate asset — which is governed by his will — and a non-probate asset, like a retirement account, life insurance policy or asset held in an irrevocable trust. Although Mr. Haber would not elaborate, the implication was that perhaps Mr. Gandolfini had assets in other vehicles that would mitigate his tax liability. The prospect was intriguing.
But I sought outside counsel to examine Mr. Gandolfini’s will and two affidavits that were filed after it. ... The burning question is, does Mr. Gandolfini’s estate have an enormous tax bill? The $30 million figure that was floating around is based on two assumptions that could be wrong. The first was that he was worth $70 million; the second was that his will guides how all that money is disbursed....
Another expert agreed that taxes might not always be the most important consideration. “All these people who are out there talking about the taxes, they don’t get it,” said Leiha Macauley, a partner and head of the Boston office at the law firm Day Pitney. “The person who is trying to provide for the children from the first marriage, the second marriage, and a wife who may be the same age as his sisters, he doesn’t care about estate taxes. He wants to provide for them equally.” Had he wanted to avoid federal estate taxes, he could have left everything to his wife, Ms. Macauley said.
The one thing Mr. Haber could have saved Mr. Gandolfini from was this column and every other article or blog written about his will. They would not have been possible if Mr. Gandolfini had had a revocable trust. Such a trust, which is easy and cheap to create, would have enabled him to have a simple “pour-over will,” which would have said that his possessions had been put into the trust. No one would know anything more about his assets or his intentions. ... “Why would a guy with this much notoriety have a will in the public record?” Mr. Scroggin said. “I have high-profile clients and we do pour-over wills as much as anything to avoid this media brouhaha.”...
Mr. Haber said that Mr. Gandolfini’s children would be fine because the actor had focused on their guardians and trustees more than the money they might inherit.“Jim was a very smart guy and he took all of this seriously,” he said. “He did what he wanted to with full awareness of the laws.”If that is the case, then his estate plan accomplished its purpose, regardless of what others think.
- Accounting Today, Gandolfini Tax Hit
- Altman Speaks, The Will of James Gandolfini: Bad Tax Planning or Good Listening?
- Estate of Denial, James Gandolfini Will a Tax ‘Disaster,’ Says Top Estate Lawyer
- Forbes, Key Lessons From James Gandolfini's Will
- Fox Business, Lessons Learned from James Gandolfini’s Will
- Private Wealth, Learning From Gandolfini's Estate Plan 'Disaster'
- Probate Lawyer Blog, James Gandolfini's Estate Planning Mess
- U.S. News & World Report, Estate Planning Lessons From James Gandolfini
- Howard M. Zaritsky, In Defense of James Gandolfini and Ed Koch
(Hat Tip: Mike Talbert, Bill Turnier.)
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Following up on my previous post, Will IRS Strike Out in Estate Tax Litigation Over Valuation of Minnesota Twins?:
- Minneapolis Start-Tribune, Pohlads Go One-on-One with IRS:
More than three years after the death of Carl Pohlad, the estate of the billionaire business magnate is mired in a tax dispute with the IRS that has potentially huge financial consequences.
The agency claims that Pohlad’s heirs owe the IRS more than $207 million, largely on the basis of a purportedly low valuation the estate placed on the late patriarch’s most visible asset, the Minnesota Twins. The tax collector also wants $48 million as an “accuracy related penalty” for a total potential tax bill of $255.8 million.
The Pohlad family disputes the IRS position and asserts that the federal agency greatly overvalued Carl Pohlad’s interest in the Twins after he handed most of the control of the ballclub to his sons in the years leading up to his death in 2009. ...
According to the experts hired by the estate, Carl Pohlad’s interest in the Twins was just $24 million at the time of his death in early 2009. The IRS places the value of those assets at $293 million.
The Pohlad estate asserts that Carl Pohlad’s minority ownership of the Twins at the time of his death — with his three sons controlling 90% of the voting shares of the club — is not adequately reflected in the IRS valuation, nor is the Great Recession, which confronted the U.S. economy at the time. ... The Pohlad estate has requested a Tax Court trial in Houston, home of the law firm handling its tax case, Baker Botts. ... At $255.8 million, the dispute would be among the richest pending before the Tax Court. ...
Combined, Carl Pohlad’s financial interest in the Twins was posted at just shy of $24 million, according to the Tax Court petition. The total value of the Twins at the time of Pohlad’s death was estimated at $356 million by Forbes magazine. But [John] Porter, the Baker Botts attorney representing the Pohlads in the IRS matter, said the valuation figures are gross figures that don’t include liabilities such as stadium debt. Moreover, Porter said, the economic environment was not conducive to the sale of sports franchises at the time of Carl Pohlad’s death.
- Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Pohlads' Dispute With IRS Over Team's Value Was Just Estate Planning:
The remarkable story of how the Pohlad family ended up in a nine-figure fight with the Internal Revenue Service over the late Carl Pohlad’s estate isn’t that remarkable at all. It’s called estate planning.
Even though there’s a list of things in dispute with the IRS, including how to treat a block of cemetery plots, this is really all about the chasm between what the IRS thinks Carl Pohlad’s Minnesota Twins ownership stake was worth in January 2009 — $293 million — and the $24 million value the estate’s tax return put on his Twins equity.
Carl Pohlad owned his Twins equity in several pieces. At the time of his death he owned a 52.2% nonvoting interest in MT Sports LLC, which in turn owned a 99%, nonvoting interest in Minnesota Twins LLC. He also owned a 95.5% equity interest in Twins Sports Inc., the managing member of the Minnesota Twins LLC.
In a limited liability company like Minnesota Twins LLC, the managing member is in charge, and usually has authority to borrow money, hire and fire employees and take other actions that the non-managing members have no right to do. But Carl Pohlad owned only 10 percent of Twins Sports’ voting shares, with the rest equally split between Jim and his two brothers.
Sure, there were three separate companies and multiple classes of equity, but as such things go in the ownership of a family business, this structure for the Twins is not particularly artful. What it meant is that at the end of Carl Pohlad’s life, he owned the majority of the franchise but did not control it. ...
Jim Pohlad explained that “you can’t just look up in the Wall Street Journal and figure out the value of things like the Twins,” adding that he and his brothers relied on their valuation experts in wrapping up the estate. ...
When this is settled, the final number won’t be public, but it’s my guess it’s going to be much closer to the position of the Pohlads than the IRS.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
New York Daily News: James Gandolfini Will a Tax 'Disaster,' Says Top Estate Lawyer:
The taxman is coming after James Gandolfini's heirs. The late Sopranos star's will is "a disaster" that could see over $30 million of his estimated $70 million estate go to the government, a top estate lawyer told the Daily News.
"It's a nightmare from a tax standpoint," said William Zabel, who reviewed the document at The News' request. The 51-year-old's "big mistake" was leaving 80% of his estate to his sisters and his 9-month-old daughter, Zabel said. That made 80% of the estate subject to "death taxes" of about 55%, and the bill is due in nine months, Zabel said.
That means his family will have to start selling off his property and liquidating his assets soon in order to pay the tab, since it's unlikely the actor had tens of millions of dollars in cash on hand. ... The 20% of the estate that Gandolfini left to wife Deborah Lin isn't directly subject to the death tax, but even she'll take a big hit, Zabel said. The will calls for the shares to be divvied up after all the taxes are paid, which means Lin will get 20% of the $40 million left after taxes, instead of 20% of $70 million. "It's a catastrophe," Zabel said. ...
He said there are ways for the beloved actor's family to get out from under the enormous tax burden, but it would be tricky. One solution could be for the sisters and daughter to renounce their shares in the estate for payments later on down the road.
(Hat Tip: Bill Turnier.)
- ABA Journal, Gandolfini Will Is a Tax ‘Catastrophe,’ Estates Lawyer Says
- Iowa Planning and Probate, Was James Gandolfini's Will a Tax Disaster, or a Reasonable Plan For His Situation?
- Questionable Planning, Terrible Reporting
Seven-time NBA all star Dwight Howard yesterday signed with the Houston Rockets for the maximum free agent contract permitted under the NBA's "Larry Bird Rule" -- $87.6 million over four years (4.5% annual increases over his existing contract). He spurned a much higher offer from the L.A. Lakers -- $118.0 million over five years (7.5% annual increases). Several tax folks have run the numbers and concluded that Howard will receive more after-tax income by signing with the Rockets rather than the Lakers, based on California's 13.3% top marginal income tax rate and the absence of a state income tax in Texas, after taking into account the application of various state and local "jock taxes."
- Accounting Web: Will Taxes Affect Dwight Howard's 'Decision?'
- Dream Shake: Will State Income Tax Bring Dwight Howard to Houston?
- Forbes: Could State Taxes Cause Dwight Howard to Flee L.A. for Houston?
- Joy of Tax Law: The Taxing Lives of Dwight Howard and Professional Athletes
- Wall Street Journal: Dwight Howard and the Tax Man
- Wall Street Journal: Tax Break Could Give Texas Teams an Edge
- The Week: Could Low Taxes Help Texas Teams Lure Dwight Howard?
(Hat Tip: Tony Nitti.)
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Forbes: IRS Calls Foul Against Estate of Late Minnesota Twins Owner Carl Pohlad, by Janet Novack:
When long time Forbes 400 member and Minnesota Twins owner Carl Pohlad died in January 2009 at the age of 93, construction of the primarily taxpayer-financed stadium that the famously penny-pinching dealmaker had sought for years was finally underway. A few months later, Forbes valued the Twins at $356 million and boosted that to $405 million after Target Field opened in 2010. Today, we estimate the major league baseball team is worth $578 million.
But according to a previously unreported lawsuit filed by Pohlad’s estate in U.S. Tax Court last month, it valued his Twins stake as just $24 million for tax purposes. IRS auditors disagreed, pegging it at $293 million and slapping his estate with $121 million in extra taxes for the team, plus a $48 million (40%) penalty for gross valuation misstatement. The lawsuit, filed by Pohad’s sons James (CEO of the Twins), Robert and William, as executors of the estate, contests all of that assessment as well as other smaller adjustments made by the IRS.
Don’t count the Pohlad heirs out. The suit provides a glimpse of how currently legal wealth transfer techniques can shield the well-advised uber-rich from the brunt of estate and gift taxes, provided they plan ahead. ...
John W. Porter, a Baker Botts partner and top FLP litigator who is representing the estate in the Tax Court case, told Forbes that the family disagrees with the IRS over more than just how steeply the ownership positions should be discounted for the selling restrictions and lack of control attached to them. He said the IRS also started with a far too high gross valuation for the Twins franchise that didn’t sufficiently account for the team’s debt or “what was going on in the country, and financial markets around the world” at the time of Pohlad’s death in January 2009. Porter wouldn’t say what value the IRS or the estate put on the franchise, but asserted the IRS’ valuation was out of line with the two most recent MLB team sales before 2009—Major League Baseball’s 2006 sale of the Washington Nationals franchise to billionaire real estate developer Ted Lerner for $450 million and the 2007 stock and asset swap in which billionaire John Malone’s Liberty Media acquired the Atlanta Braves from Time Warner. That deal valued the Braves at $450 million.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Seven-time NBA all star Dwight Howard is a free agent and, under the NBA's "Larry Bird Rule," can re-sign with the L.A. Lakers for a maximum of $118.0 million over five years (7.5% annual increases over his existing contract) or with any other team for a maximum of $87.6 million over four years (4.5% annual increases). The Houston Rockets has emerged as a likely bidder for Howard's services, and several tax folks have run the numbers and concluded that Howard would receive more after-tax income by signing with the Rockets rather than the Lakers, based on California's 13.3% top marginal income tax rate and the absence of a state income tax in Texas, after taking into account the application of various state and local "jock taxes."
- Accounting Web: Will Taxes Affect Dwight Howard's 'Decision?'
- Dream Shake: Will State Income Tax Bring Dwight Howard to Houston?
- Forbes: Could State Taxes Cause Dwight Howard to Flee L.A. for Houston?
- Joy of Tax Law: The Taxing Lives of Dwight Howard and Professional Athletes
Friday, June 14, 2013
NBA Finals: The Miami Heat (founded in 1988) and San Antonio Spurs (1976) are in two of the nine states without an income tax. I have previously mined this topic in:
- The Impact of Taxes on Lebron James' Decision (July 8, 2010)
- NBA Salary Cap Gives No-Tax Dallas and Miami an Unfair Advantage (June 23, 2011)
- NBA Salary Cap Gives No-Tax Dallas and Miami an Unfair Advantage (Sept. 28, 2011)
NHL Stanley Cup Finals: The Boston Bruins and Chicago Blackhawks -- two of the NHL's Original Six franchises -- are in two of the highest tax states: Illinois and Massachusetts are tied with the fourth highest individual federal, state, and local tax burden.
- Boston Globe, Chicago vs. Boston: How We Match Up
- NESN, Super Bowl XX, Curses, 1918 World Series Highlight Top 10 Boston-Chicago Sports Moments
- Wall Street Journal, It’s Chicago vs. Boston for the Cup
- Tax Foundation, The Facts on Illinois' Tax Climate
- Tax Foundation, The Facts on Massachusetts' Tax Climate
Barcelona soccer star Lionel Messi and his father are accused of evading $5.3 million in Spanish taxes in 2007-09.
- Above the Law
- The Guardian
- L.A. Times
- New York Times
- The Sun
- The Telegraph
- USA Today
- Wall Street Journal
- Yahoo! Sports
Friday, May 3, 2013
Jay Leno: President Obama held a press conference earlier today, and he said he still wants to close the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, but he doesn't know how to do it. He should do what he always does: declare it a small business and tax it out of existence.It will be gone in a minute.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn (R) today introduced an amendment to the Marketplace Fairness Act that would end the practice of allowing professional sports leagues to qualify as tax-exempt organizations, a move that would hit leagues like the National Football League, the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) Tour, and the National Hockey League, among others.
Since 1966, the tax code has allowed leagues to classify as 501(c)(6) charitable organizations — a classification used by trade and industry organizations — under the assumption that the leagues were promoting the general value of their sports. But Coburn’s amendment asserts that the leagues are not non-profits engaged in the promotion of their sports but instead are businesses interested solely in the promotion of their business; that is, the NFL isn’t so much concerned about promoting the general sport of football as it is concerned with promoting NFL football, because it is the NFL brand and the NFL teams and logos and products that make it a profitable business. The NFL, for instance, didn’t seem interested in promoting the general spread of football when a competitor league, the United States Football League, was formed in 1983. Likewise, the PGA Tour, NHL, and other sports leagues serve to promote their brand of their sports, not the sport as a whole.
Further, the leagues hardly pay their executives as if they are non-profits. The NFL paid $51.5 million to just eight executives in 2010, according to Coburn, and other leagues are similar — PGA commissioner Tim Finchem made $5.2 million that year, while NHL commissioner Gary Bettman took home $4.3 million....
NFL teams pay membership dues totaling roughly $6 million per team, but they are allowed to write those off for tax purposes as donations to a charitable organization. As Andrew Delaney explained in the Vermont Law Review in 2010, the NFL, which collected $192 million in revenue largely through membership dues in 2009, then pours much of that money back into a stadium fund that allows owners to access interest-free loans as long as they secure taxpayer financing for either new stadiums or improvements to existing facilities. ...
Removing the tax-exempt status would force the leagues to acknowledge the reality that they are businesses, and they would be taxed as such. For the NFL, that would mean that membership dues and assessments would no longer be tax exempt, according to Delaney, and the profits run through the NFL’s or PGA’s tax-exempt organizations no longer would be either (the NFL runs multiple for-profit organizations, such as NFL Films.
(Hat Tip: Greg McNeal.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
I taught my last classes of the academic year today -- thanks to my students in Federal Income Tax and Federal Estate & Gift Tax for a wonderful semester, and for coming to our home for dinner the past two nights!
Well we got no choice
All the girls and boys
Makin' all that noise
'Cause they found new toys
Well we can't salute ya
Can't find a flag
If that don't suit ya
That's a drag
School's out for summer
School's out forever
School's been blown to pieces
No more pencils
No more books
No more teacher's dirty looks
Well we got no class
And we got no principles (principals)
We ain't got no innocence
We can't even think of a word that rhymes
School's out for summer
School's out forever
My school's been blown to pieces
No more pencils
No more books
No more teacher's dirty looks
Out for summer
Out 'til fall
We might not come back at all
School's out forever
School's out for summer
School's out with fever
School's out completely
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Stanley Veliotis (Fordham University, School of Business), Salary Equalization for Baseball Free Agents Confronting Different State Tax Regimes, 27 J. Sport Mgmt. ___ (2013):
This paper derives equivalent gross salary for Major League Baseball free agents weighing offers from teams based in states with different income tax rates. After discussing tax law applicable to professional sports teams’ players, including “jock taxes” and the interrelationship of state and federal taxes, this paper builds several models to determine equivalent salary. A base-case derivation, oversimplified by ignoring non-salary income and Medicare tax, demonstrates that salary adjustment from a more tax expensive state’s team requires solely a state (but not federal) tax gross-up. Subsequent derivations, introducing non-salary income and Medicare tax, demonstrate full Medicare but small federal tax gross-ups are also required. This paper applies the model to equalize salary offers from two teams in different states in a highly stylized example approximating the 2010 free agency of pitcher Cliff Lee. Aspects of the models may also be used to inform other sports’ players of their after-tax income if salary caps limit the ability to receive adequately grossed-up salaries.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Forbes: It's Time We Learned What Members of Congress Pay in Taxes, by Dorothy A. Brown (Emory):
On Friday President and Mrs. Obama released their most recent tax return for the entire world to see. They continued a longstanding tradition of sitting presidents releasing their returns, even though no law requires that they do so. The tradition began under the late President Richard Nixon. ...
Itemized deductions often come with a hefty price tag. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that for 2013 the amount of revenue lost because of the three deductions the Obamas took (which happen to be among the most popular deductions taken) will be: $90 billion for mortgage interest, $47 billion for charitable contributions, and $46 billion for state and local income taxes. ... One part of the minority that benefits from itemized deductions is members of Congress.
Although Presidents have voluntarily released their tax returns for the last several decades, nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to members of Congress. McClatchy newspapers reported last July that of the 535 members asked to release their most recent tax returns, just 17 did. ... I suspect that if we looked at the tax returns of eavery member of Congress we would see something close to a 100% itemization rate. Compare that to only a third of the American public, and the numbers would suggest that repeal is the best way forward.
Given that I do not expect members of Congress to change their ways, one way to move closer to reform would be for the IRS to issue a new kind of report, which I call the “535 Report.” It would provide in summary fashion the information from the tax returns of all members of Congress. The 535 Report would be similar in concept to what the IRS currently produces for the tax returns of the 400 highest-income individuals.
No law is needed, because no privacy rights would be violated. All the IRS would have to do would be to crunch the numbers. Then we would know what percent of Congress itemized deductions and what the most popular deductions were. We could then compare the information with what the IRS already produces about the American taxpaying public in general, and hopefully encourage voters to demand change.
David Cay Johnston reported in The New York Times in June 2003 that the 400 report was begun in response to a professor asking for it. Let’s see if lightening can strike twice.
For more, see Dorothy Brown, The 535 Report: A Pathway to Fundamental Tax Reform, 40 Pepp. L. Rev. ___ (2013). For the video of Dorothy's presentation of the paper at the January 18, 2013 Pepperdine/Tax Analysts Symposium on Tax Advice for the Second Obama Administration, see iTunes and YouTube.
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
So, you think you have it bad this tax season. Have you heard that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg will pay between $1 billion and $2 billion in taxes? That sounds like a tough pill for anyone to swallow.
But it is premature to start a pity party for Zuckerberg. The twenty-something billionaire reaped large financial gains from exercising the stock options that triggered his tax bill, and he has benefited from favorable tax rules along the way. Even better, Zuckerberg will survive his encounter with the tax man in a position to never have to pay taxes again for the rest of his life. ...
The truly rich do not have to pay any tax once they have their fortunes in hand. They can follow the simple tax planning advice to buy/borrow/die: Buy assets that appreciate in value without producing cash (like shares of Internet stocks), borrow to finance lifestyle, and die to pass on a "stepped up" basis to heirs wherein the tax gain miraculously disappears.
Zuckerberg now has $11 billion or more with which to play this game. He can live off money borrowed against that huge sum (rest assured, he can get good interest rates), never having to sell any asset at a gain, and never having to get an "ordinary" salary again.
(Hat Tip: Ann Murphy.) For more, see Edward J. McCaffery (USC), Distracted from Distraction by Distraction: Reimagining Estate Tax Reform, 40 Pepp. L. Rev. ___ (2013).
Friday, April 5, 2013
TMZ reports that Wesley Snipes was released from prison on Tuesday after serving two years and four months of his three-year sentence on three counts of willful failure to file tax returns under § 7203. He is is subject to home confinement until July 19.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
ESPN Outside the Lines, Athlete Charities Often Lack Standards:
An "Outside the Lines" investigation of 115 charities founded by high-profile, top-earning male and female athletes has found that most of their charities don't measure up to what charity experts would say is an efficient, effective use of money.
Using guidelines set by nonprofit watchdogs Charity Navigator, the Better Business Bureau and the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, "Outside the Lines" found that 74% of the nonprofits fell short of one or more acceptable nonprofit operating standards. The standards cover all sorts of aspects, such as how much money a nonprofit actually spends on charitable work as opposed to administrative expenses and whether there are enough board members overseeing the organization.
Among the "Outside the Lines" findings:
• Many athlete charities fail the effectiveness test for a variety of reasons, ranging from the deceptive and unethical -- if not illegal -- to the simply neglectful and ignorant. Some athletes set up foundations as tax-planning vehicles. Others dispute the nonprofit standards overall, saying as long as they spend at least some money on actual charity they should not be criticized.
• In many cases, OTL had a hard time measuring a charity's actual effectiveness because it was behind on filing its IRS tax returns or the returns were filled with errors and omissions. Problems can go unnoticed for years as the main agencies that oversee charities -- the IRS and states' attorney general offices -- don't audit every return.
• Even though the athlete charities often are named in honor of wealthy sports icons, only about a third of them had total assets of $500,000 or more. Multimillion-dollar charities that actually run programs, such as those founded by Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Andre Agassi and Richard and Kyle Petty, are rare.
(Hat Tip: Charles Perin.)
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
The Independent: Shakespeare the 'Hard-Headed Businessman' Uncovered:
Hoarder, moneylender, tax dodger — it's not how we usually think of William Shakespeare.
But we should, according to a group of academics who say the Bard was a ruthless businessman who grew wealthy dealing in grain during a time of famine.Researchers from Aberystwyth University in Wales argue that we can't fully understand Shakespeare unless we study his often-overlooked business savvy.
"Shakespeare the grain-hoarder has been redacted from history so that Shakespeare the creative genius could be born," the researchers say in a paper due to be delivered at the Hay literary festival in Wales in May....
He was pursued by the authorities for tax evasion, and in 1598 was prosecuted for hoarding grain during a time of shortage.
- Christian Science Monitor, William Shakespeare: Tax Dodger, Shady Businessman?
- Daily Mail, Was Shakespeare a Tax Dodger? Bard Was 'Ruthless Businessman Who Exploited Famine and Faced Jail for Cheating Revenue'
- Los Angeles Times, Shakespeare Was Ruthless Profiteer and Tax Dodger, Study Says
- New York Daily News, Shakespeare Called Grain Hoarder, Tax Dodger, Money Lender and Ruthless Businessman
- Sunday Times, Bad Bard: A Tax Dodger and Famine Profiteer
- Telegraph, Shakespeare Was a Tax-Evading Food hoarder, Study Claims
- Wonkette, Titus Andronicus Shrugged: Will Tax-Dodging Shakespeare Become the New Ayn Rand?
(Hat Tip: Jack Chin.)
Friday, March 29, 2013
The world lost Ed Koch on February 1st, 2013; however, Mr. Koch who left only a 2007 will* to direct the distribution of his estate ... has left much of his estate’s worth to the government in estate taxes and probate fees.
Mr. Koch desired in his will to bequeath his estimated estate of $10 to $11 million to his sister, Pat Thaler, her three sons whom he “adored,” his faithful serving secretary of almost 40 years, Mary Garrigan, and some to the LaGuardia and Wagner Educational Fund with the remainder to other family members.
Mr. Koch’s estate will have to pay a New York state tax of 16% on every dollar over $1 million and a 40% federal tax on every dollar over $5.25 million. If it is assumed that his estate is worth $10 million, this would equate to $1.44 million in NY state estate tax and $1.90 million in federal taxes....
“He was such an accomplished, well rounded bachelor and a man of great Jewish faith. But I find it so surprising, himself being an attorney, that Mr. Koch did not manage his estate plan with the same veracity. I believe he could have done a much better job of avoiding the massive amount of taxes his estate will eventually have to pay,” laments Rocco Beatrice, Managing Director of Estate Street Partners, LLC.
- Forbes, Ed Koch's Will: Taxes Take Big Bite Out Of Hizzoner's Nest Egg, by Deborah L. Jacobs
- Wall Street Journal, The Will Of Koch: Legacy, Family
- Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, Ed Koch's Will, by Gerry Beyer (Texas Tech)
- Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, Taxes Take a Large Portion of Koch's Estate, by Gerry Beyer (Texas Tech)
Thursday, March 28, 2013
We will screen four classic television episodes, spanning different decades, where major characters are faced with tax compliance choices. Some characters choose to report their tax liabilities honestly and others do not. The episodes featured are from The Honeymooners (1956), The Phil Silvers Show (1956), The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1975) and The Simpsons (1998). Professor Lawrence Zelenak from Duke Law School will join us as a special guest speaker and will lead a discussion on what popular culture can teach us about public attitudes toward tax compliance.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Forbes: How Much Tax Will You Owe on a [$338] Million Powerball Jackpot? A Lot More Than In 2012, by Janet Novack:
The good news: You are about to win a [$338] million Powerball Jackpot. The bad news: You’ll owe millions more in tax than you would have had you won the same pot in 2012. ... The top combined federal and state rate for a New Jersey resident on lottery winnings would be 46.2%, which translates into a tax bill topping $97 million–$11 million more than it would have been in 2012— if Saturday’s winner elects to take the $211 million lump [sum].
(Hat Tip: Greg McNeal.)
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Call it the Jimmy Fallon tax credit.
Quietly tucked into tentative state budget is a provision that would help NBC move “The Tonight Show” back to New York, the Daily News has learned.
The provision would make state tax credits available for the producers of “a talk or variety program that filmed at least five seasons outside the state prior to its first relocated season in New York,” budget documents show.
In addition, the episodes “must be filmed before a studio audience” of at least 200 people. And the program must have an annual production budget of at least $30 million or incur at least $10 million a year in capital expenses.
In other words, a program exactly like “The Tonight Show.”
- The Hill, A 'Jimmy Fallon Tax Credit'?
- New York Magazine, Cuomo’s New Tax Break Just Happens to Cover The Tonight Show
- New York Times, In Budget, a Tax Break for ‘Tonight’ to Relocate
- Newsday, 'Tonight Show' Move to NYC Would Qualify for Tax Breaks
- Wall Street Journal, Official: NY Tax Breaks Would Apply to 'Tonight'
- The Week, Should New York Use Tax Credits to Woo Jimmy Fallon and The Tonight Show?
Thursday, March 21, 2013
[I]f Superman crushes carbon and makes diamonds, is that taxable income? ... There are two questions here. First, are the diamonds taxable income for Superman (or Clark Kent) and second, are they taxable income for a recipient such as Lois Lane?
The answer to the first question is “probably not.” A traditional, almost fundamental principle of income tax is that a gain in value must be realized before it can be taxed. ...It seems clear that improving the value of the carbon is not such a taxable event, since there is neither a sale nor disposition of the property of any kind. An analogy might be made to a painting that appreciates in value; the increase in value is not taxed until the painting is sold, given away, etc.
If the diamonds are given to Lois Lane, however, that is obviously a gift, which has its own set of special rules. In the US, gifts are generally not taxable income for the recipient. 26 USC 102(a). But there is a gift tax that is ordinarily paid by the giver. 26 USC 2501(a)(1) and 26 USC 2502(c). However, there is a significant exclusion for gifts that currently stands at $13,000 per-recipient per-year. Thus the question is, presuming the diamonds were given as a gift today, would they exceed the exclusion?
Obviously this depends on the size and quality of the diamond and the state of the diamond market, but for example the diamond given to Lana Lang in Superman III appears to be about 3.5 to 4 carats and of very good quality. Looking at stones for sale on Blue Nile, a similar diamond would cost somewhere between $150,000 and $400,000, depending on the particulars, which is far beyond the gift exclusion. So how much would Superman be on the hook for? The answer is “a lot.” ...
Superman could theoretically avoid gift tax liability by performing the gratuitous service of crushing coal into diamonds rather than giving a finished diamond. Although it is true that gratuitous services are not taxed, it is also true that the IRS and the courts frown on tax avoidance schemes that attempt to exalt form over substance. Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935). So a scheme by which Superman handed someone a piece of coal, fully intending to turn it into a diamond, then did so, would be tantamount to simply giving them a diamond. The IRS would focus on the substance of the transaction, not the form, and consider it a taxable gift of property.
But if, for example, Superman were at someone’s house for a barbecue and decided to thank them for dinner by crushing a lump of their own charcoal into a diamond, that would be different. In that case Superman really would be performing a gratuitous service. ...
Superman has crushed coal into diamonds for various reasons, but one of the best known was his gift of a ring to Lana Lang in Superman III. This raises an interesting question: is an engagement ring subject to gift tax? There is, subject to certain qualifications, an unlimited marital deduction for gifts between spouses, but what about an engagement ring, which is given in anticipation of marriage?
The law surrounding engagement rings and other pre-nuptial gifts has a long and complex history, dating back to at least the Romans. Most of the law has to do with who owns such gifts, particularly if the marriage is called off. But it turns out that none of that matters for tax purposes. If the donor and donee aren’t married at the time of the gift, then the marital deduction doesn’t apply. 26 U.S.C. § 2523(a). So an engagement ring is subject to gift tax, even if the donor and donee get married later that same year. In practice I suspect that few people actually report such gifts, even in the rare case where it would make a difference in their ultimate tax liability, but maybe Superman would actually be moral enough to do so.
Crushing coal into diamonds still doesn’t create tax liability for Superman, and he still has some ways to avoid liability if he crushes coal into diamonds for other people, but he has to be careful about it. And strictly speaking he probably should have reported that ring he gave to Lana.
(Hat Tip: Above the Law.)
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Following up on yesterday's post, After Losing Unanimous Decision Saturday, MMA Fighter Nick Diaz May Be KO'd by IRS: USA Today: Reps Downplay Nick Diaz's Post-UFC 158 Tax Comments:
Nick Diaz's next opponent is not the IRS, but he probably needs to get a certified public accountant in his corner.
The recent UFC welterweight title challenger, who lost to champion Georges St-Pierre on Saturday in UFC 158, might need to file past tax returns, said his longtime manager, Cesar Gracie.
Diaz, who initially shirked UFC 158's post-event news conference before showing up late, perked up ears when, in the midst of a rambling assessment of his performance, he said he had never paid U.S. income taxes.
Gracie, who also trains Diaz, said the fighter misspoke and that Diaz has paid more than $100,000 to the government in the last two years. "Nick is a little crazy, but he has paid taxes," Gracie told MMAjunkie.com on Monday.
Monday, March 18, 2013
These are strange days, when we are told both that tax incentives can transform technologies yet higher taxes will not drag down the economy. So which is it? Do taxes change behavior or not? Of course they do, but often in ways that policy hands never anticipate, let alone intend. Consider, for example, how federal taxes hobbled Swing music and gave birth to bebop.
With millions of young men coming home from World War II—eager to trade their combat boots for dancing shoes—the postwar years should have been a boom time for the big bands that had been so wildly popular since the 1930s. Yet by 1946 many of the top orchestras—including those of Benny Goodman, Harry James and Tommy Dorsey—had disbanded. Some big names found ways to get going again, but the journeyman bands weren't so lucky. By 1949, the hotel dine-and-dance-room trade was a third of what it had been three years earlier. The Swing Era was over.
Dramatic shifts in popular culture are usually assumed to result from naturally occurring forces such as changing tastes (did people get sick of hearing "In the Mood"?) or demographics (were all those new parents of the postwar baby boom at home with junior instead of out on a dance floor?). But the big bands didn't just stumble and fall behind the times. They were pushed.
In 1944, a new wartime cabaret tax went into effect, imposing a ruinous 30% (later merely a destructive 20%) excise on all receipts at any venue that served food or drink and allowed dancing. ... [I]n the next few years, struggling nightclub owners were trying every which way to avoid having to foist the tax on customers.
The tax-law regulation's ... exception had the biggest impact. Clubs that provided strictly instrumental music to which no one danced were exempt from the cabaret tax. It is no coincidence that in the back half of the 1940s a new and undanceable jazz performed primarily by small instrumental groups—bebop—emerged as the music of the moment.
"The spotlight was on instrumentalists because of the prohibitive entertainment taxes," the great bebop drummer Max Roach was quoted in jazz trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie's memoirs, "To Be or Not to Bop." "You couldn't have a big band because the big band played for dancing."
The federal excise tax inadvertently spurred the bebop revolution: "If somebody got up to dance, there would be 20% more tax on the dollar. If someone got up there and sang a song, it would be 20% more," Roach said. "It was a wonderful period for the development of the instrumentalist." ...
The cabaret tax dropped to 10% in 1960 and was finally eliminated in 1965. By then, the Swing Era ballrooms and other "terperies" were long gone, and public dancing was done in front of stages where young men wielded electric guitars.
Thanks to a 'cabaret tax,' millions of Americans said goodbye to Swing Music. A lot fewer said hello to bebop.
The Daily Mail: Lonely John Cleese flees Monaco:
It has 300 days of sunshine a year, drips with glamour and has been a tax-free haven for 130 years. Which is why comedy legend John Cleese must have celebrated when, last year, he won permission to become one of Monaco’s 32,000 pampered citizens. Faced with crippling alimony bills, the move looked like a financial blessing for Cleese, 73, and his fourth wife Jennifer Wade, 42.
But now the couple have surprised everyone by giving up their Monaco home and returning – at some speed – to London.
What’s more, the pair are conducting an online fire sale of the furniture and artworks left behind in the principality.
Cleese might be glad of the additional funds as, financially, the timing of his about-turn couldn’t be worse. By leaving Monaco before the start of the new tax year, he is liable to pay an entire year’s tax to the Inland Revenue, the very thing he was said to be keen to avoid.So why the sudden change of heart? One friend told The Mail on Sunday: ‘John went to Monaco for tax reasons but the truth is he was very lonely. In London, he has a tight network of friends who love and support him. His French isn’t very good and he found it hard to plug into the culture.’
(Hat Tip: Bruce Bartlett.)
In the press conference following his Saturday night loss by unanimous decision to UFC welterweight champion Georges St-Pierre in Montreal, Nick Diaz said "I've never paid taxes in my life and I'll probably go to jail."
- ESPN, Nick Diaz Says He Doesn't Pay Taxes
- Huffington Post, Nick Diaz Taxes: UFC Fighter Said He Doesn't Pay Taxes After Latest Loss
- New York Post, UFC's Diaz Says He's 'Probably' Going to Jail Because He's 'Never Paid Taxes'
- Sports Illustrated, UFC's Nick Diaz Admits He's Never Paid His Taxes
- Yahoo! Sports, Nick Diaz Reveals He's Never Paid Taxes
(Hat Tip: Eric Sachtjen.)
Saturday, March 16, 2013
In Garcia v. Commissioner, 140 T.C. No. 6 (Mar. 14, 2013), the Tax Court allocated 65% of golfer Sergio Garcia's compensation from his contract with golf club manufacturer TaylorMade to royalties (for use of his image rights) (and thus not subject to U.S. taxation) and 35% to personal services (and thus subject to U.S. taxation), rather than the 85%/15% split provided for in the contract.
- Bloomberg, Golfer Sergio Garcia Loses in U.S. Tax Court on Endorsements
- Forbes, Golfer Sergio Garcia Comes Up Short In Tax Court, But Is The Decision A Victory For Other Athletes?
- Reuters, Sergio Garcia Scores Birdie in U.S. Tax Court
- Sports Illustrated, Sergio Garcia Must Pay More U.S. Taxes on Endorsements
- TaxProf Blog, Retief Goosen Birdies at FedEx St. Jude Classic, Bogeys in Tax Court
Monday, March 11, 2013
John Paulson, a lifelong New Yorker, is exploring a move to Puerto Rico, where a new law would eliminate taxes on gains from the $9.5 billion he has invested in his own hedge funds, according to four people who have spoken to him about a possible relocation.
Ten wealthy Americans have already taken advantage of the year-old Puerto Rican law that lets new residents pay no local or U.S. federal taxes on capital gains, according to Alberto Baco Bague, Secretary of Economic Development and Commerce of Puerto Rico. The marginal tax rate for affluent New Yorkers can exceed 50% on ordinary income. ...
Paulson executives, too, have already taken steps that may allow them to pay lower taxes. Last year, they put about $450 million into a new Bermuda reinsurance company that in turn invested all of its assets in Paulson & Co. funds. The structure positions them to defer any taxes on investment income from the funds for years, and to pay only the lower capital gains rate when they do.
(Hat Tip: Bill Turnier.)
Update: Bloomberg, How Puerto Rico Beyond IRS Attracts Paulson-Sized Riches