Tax attorney needed

[capnkirk]

Can anyone recommend a decent tax attorney?

[SPEShockAlum]

For personal or business?

[WuDrWu]

Funny, I am in need of one as well.

[capnkirk]

Business. But also personal if that makes any sense....

[SPEShockAlum]

I'll PM you.

[wufan]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Perhaps you could open your books to me and I will see what can be done.

[capnkirk]

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Perhaps you could open your books to me and I will see what can be done.

Verrrryyyyyy tempting. But I may have to take a rain check.

[Aargh]

I was the computer guy for Bulls & Bears when it was in business. I'd go there after business hours and always got a few free brews.

One guy in the bar told me he had submitted a piece of art to Ducks Unlimited, but they didn't choose it for the art they use. He wanted to know how he could write that off on his taxes.

Here's how to get a $990,000 write off that will only cost you $5,000. You're going to have $5,000 of income from this plan.

Print 1,000 copies of your artwork. Have them sequentially numbered. Destroy the original. Donate copies 1-990 to Ducks Unlimited that they can use for any purpose. That leaves you still holding the prints numbered 991-1,000.

Take those to any art gallery that takes artwork on consignment. Put a $1,000 price tag on them.

Give 10 friends you can trust $1,000 in cash. Have them go to the art gallery and buy all 10 copies at the asking price. The art gallery gives you 1/2 of the proceeds, so you're only out $5,000.

You have established (10 times) that the value of the highest numbered prints is $1,000 each. This is substantial evidence of the arms-length value of the artwork. Prints numbered 1-990 should have at least the value of prints 991-1000, so the $1,000 valuation is conservative.

Ducks Unlimited is a 501(c) that qualifies for tax-deductible donations.

[rrshock]

This topic is interesting to me, because I could probably use one as well. I think the IRS is being a little more problematic these days.

[wufan]

This topic is interesting to me, because I could probably use one as well. I think the IRS is being a little more problematic these days.

I deal with federal audits routinely in my line of work. Over the past few years the tone of the audits has turned from a partnership for the greater good of the American public to one of suspicion and guilt until proven innocent. In fact, a recent auditor disagreed with our position that had been submitted, vetted, and approved by the FDA and sighted is because he didn't believe the FDA should have allowed it.

[shock]

I deal with federal audits routinely in my line of work. Over the past few years the tone of the audits has turned from a partnership for the greater good of the American public to one of suspicion and guilt until proven innocent. In fact, a recent auditor disagreed with our position that had been submitted, vetted, and approved by the FDA and sighted is because he didn't believe the FDA should have allowed it.

You are a rich, vocal, republican?

[shocka khan]

You are a rich, vocal, republican?

The issue has less to do with his personal political opinions and more to do with a difference between in interpretations between the company he works for and the IRS.

It is unfortunate that the IRS and the FDA are at odds. These things happen in large bureaucracies (so it's not totally unique to government). I'm also sure that wufan presented the letter the FDA provided to the company he works for stating that the work is tax deductible.

I'm betting worst case scenario, wufan's company appeals any negative ruling and that any assessment would be reduced/eliminated during the appeal.

And not matter what you might want to believe, this is between the IRS and wufan's employer and not anything related to political opinions.

[shocka khan]

I deal with federal audits routinely in my line of work. Over the past few years the tone of the audits has turned from a partnership for the greater good of the American public to one of suspicion and guilt until proven innocent. In fact, a recent auditor disagreed with our position that had been submitted, vetted, and approved by the FDA and sighted is because he didn't believe the FDA should have allowed it.

The IRS can target enforcement and direct their resources to 'selected' industries or fact situations. There has been a lot in the news lately regarding how pharma companies are thumbing their nose at the government (i.e. asking for subsidies or tax breaks) and then moving their corporate headquarters overseas (the recent inversions/mergers in the pharma industry are evidence of this.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pfizer-allergan-merger-20151123-story.html

Like it or not, the pharma industry has brought some of this enforcement on themselves by trying to take advantage of questionable tax theories. I have also read that since big pharma has been playing both sides of the hill, both R's and D's are p.o.'ed at them and are looking for ways to take some of the laws that granted them advantages in the past away.

This might simply be a further sign that big pharma has put a target on their backs. Add an overzealous IRS revenue agent and you might be in trouble.

I remember when a Torchmark (large insurance company) had a market conduct examination that was performed by an ex-teacher, ex-nurse and an ex-cop, none of whom were trained in the insurance industry and none whose prior positions required a thorough knowledge of accounting in their past positions. At the end of the examination, the company was fined $1 million. The commissioner of the state that levied the fine was bragging in the news media about the scalp he had collected.

By the time Torchmark's legal team got done with them, the report was discredited, the commissioner was forced to apologize, the fine was reduced to about $10,000 and through negotiations, a provision was put in that the fine was to be dismissed so long as the trivial violation that actually occurred did not happen again.

I wish you luck against the iRS as the facts of the case that you have shared with us certainly make it appear as if you have a great opportunity to prevail. It just sucks that you have to spend the money and other resources to fight them.

[wufan]

While I appreciate the broad interpretation of my analogy @shocka khan:, especially given the thread topic, the truth is that the audit I was referring to was from the FDA and not the IRS. The reason I used this analogy on this topic is because it serves as subjective inference that government is treating industry as criminal interprise, rather than a partnership of checks and balances. I believe this behavior to be wide spread beyond the IRS and the FDA.

[wufan]

You are a rich, vocal, republican?

It depends on your definition on all three of these topics.

I am not classified as rich by American standards, however by global standards, I believe most countries would consider me to be wealthy. I hope to one day be considered wealthy by American standards, but have turned down opportunities to reach that level of income because I would rather be a middle class Kansan than a wealthy ex-pat.

I have opinions based on values that I share with close friends such as those on Shockernet, but I am not involved in politics.

Republican most closely fits my political views between the two major parties, but I would consider my values to most closely align with libertarian ideals.