Category: Tax

Rahm Emanuel Was a Little Late Paying His F—ing Property Taxes

And by a little late, we mean three months. Rahm found out the news from WBBM radio in Chicago let him know about it. So a slight embarrassment that was likely met with a response of “well, f*ck me,” “get the f*ck out of here” or simply, “F*ck.”

But the worst thing that Rahm Emanuel will endure for forgetting to pay his property taxes isn’t the questions from the media, it isn’t the $445.56 penalty that he and his wife incurred on the balance of $7,400, it’s that he just gave material to Glenn Beck for the rest of his time as the Chief of Staff.


Since delinquent taxpayers in the Obama Administration has been a favorite target of Beck but since he had his own tax troubles maybe he’ll just let this blow over.

Then again, GB could spin this into the jobs report that came out today which in turn encouraged a nice little drop in the markets which parlays into a Deepwater Horizon connection and pretty soon someone will be calling for someone else’s resignation.

Rahm Emanuel Pays Property Taxes After Inquiry [WBBM]

New Healthcare Tax Credit Should Help Small Businesses, Nonprofits

This story is republished from CFOZone, where you’ll find news, analysis and professional networking tools for finance executives.

The Internal Revenue Service recently released some information to help companies take advantage of a tax credit provided by the health reform law.

The IRS estimates that about 4 million businesses qualify, and is sending out notices to as many as possible advising them of the tax break. If you haven’t received anything but believe your company may qualify, here’s what you should know:


The credit is available to companies with fewer than 25 employees with average wages of $50,000 or less. The full credit goes to companies with 10 or fewer employees and average annual wages of $25,000 or less. It is not available to self-employed individuals.

The credit covers 35 percent of an employer’s contribution to employee health premiums, so long as that doesn’t exceed 35 percent of the average cost of a health plan in the small group market. For a tax-exempt organization, the credit is 25 percent. Once the health exchanges are set up, the credit increases to 50 percent for businesses and 35 percent for nonprofits. At that time, the credit will only be available to companies purchasing insurance through the exchange.

A company can use the credit to reduce income tax owed and can carry the credit forward 20 years or back one year after 2010. Nonprofits can use the credit against withholding and Medicare taxes owed on behalf of their employees.

A key caveat is that employers must pay for half of the premium. For most workers, especially low-wage employees, a company that does not pay for at least half the premium is offering insurance that is essentially unaffordable. Even 50 percent is most likely not enough to do low-wage workers much good, especially at small companies where health care premiums are more expensive.

The amount of the credit is based on the premiums an employer pays for, so the more generous the coverage, the greater the credit. While premiums paid for owners and their families cannot be counted, those paid for seasonal workers can be. And the IRS has defined “premiums” broadly: not only does it cover premiums for standard medical insurance but it also applies to dental, long-term care and vision insurance-though again, an employer must pay 50 percent of each premium to count it toward the credit.

Calculating the credit probably requires any small employer to consult an accountant to see if the benefits are worth the cost of providing insurance. The tax credit is in effect, allowing employers who are already thinking about health insurance for their employees to factor in the savings as they plan ahead.

As an observer, I think the key issue is whether the credit is enough to offset the rising cost of health insurance. Those costs have hit small employers the hardest. We’ll see if the tax credit makes a difference in reversing the trend among small employers of dropping health insurance for their employees altogether.

S Corp Shareholders Are Going to Have Basis Issues at Year End – Four Things for Them to Keep in Mind

When somebody repays a loan, that’s not income to the lender, is it? It can be when a shareholder loans money to an S corporation. New York businessmen Ira and Sheldon Nathel learned that the hard way in court this week. Ira and Sheldon each owned shares in food distributors that were set up as S corporations. When you own an S corporation you may deduct corporate losses on your 1040, but only if you have basis in your S corporation stock or in loans you have made to the corporation (guarantees of corporate debt don’t work).

Yes, there’s a catch. When you take S corporation losses, they reduce your basis — first in your stock, then in your loans. Subsequent income, including tax-exempt income, restores your basis in your debt andr. If you repay a loan with reduced basis, you have taxable income to the extent the repayment exceeds your basis.


At the end of 2000, IRA and Sheldon each loaned $649,775 to one of their S corporations. That enabled them to take losses of $537,228 or so, leaving them with $112,547 in remaining loan basis. That would have been fine if they had waited patiently until S corporation income had restored their basis. Their patience ran out in February 2001, when they repaid the loan in full.

They may have had second thoughts. In August 2001 Ira and Sheldon each made a capital contribution to the S corporation — $537,228, coincidentally. They then took a novel position on their 2001 tax returns. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals takes up the story:

In calculating their 2001 taxes, the Nathels treated their capital contributions… as constituting “tax-exempt income” to the corporations for the purposes of § 1366(a)(1)(A). Therefore, because the Nathels’ bases in their stock previously had been reduced to zero and because their bases in the loans they made to the corporations were also reduced, the Nathels used their capital contributions to restore their bases in the loans pursuant to § 1367(b)(2)(B). Without such an increase in their bases, the petitioners would have been taxed on the ordinary income that would have resulted from the corporations’ repayment of the petitioners’ loans in amounts above the petitioners’ previously reduced bases.

The IRS didn’t buy the idea that a capital contribution was some sort of income. They said a capital contribution increases capital, not debt, and is allocable to stock basis. That meant $537,228 in ordinary taxable income. Unfortunately for Ira and Sheldon, the Tax Court, and now the Second Circuit, continue to recognize the capital/income distinction that has been around for approximately forever.

The economy being what it is (still crappy), lots of S corporation shareholder are going to have basis problems at year end. They should keep a few points in mind:

• Basis is necessary to deduct losses, but it isn’t sufficient – Your basis has to be “at-risk” and you have to clear the maze of the “passive loss” rules.

• Use caution when repaying loans – When you make a year-end loan to your S corporation to enable you to deduct losses, repaying the loan will trigger taxable income until the loan basis is restored by subsequent S corporation income.

• “Open account” loans can be tricky – Regulations split “open account” debt into separate “loans” when the loan amounts exceed $25,000. That means fluctuating open account balances during the tax year can lead to taxable income, even if the balance ends up higher at year end than it was at the start of the year.

• Related party issues – It’s dangerous to borrow from one S corporation you control and loan the funds to another one. The IRS likes to attack such loans as lacking substance.

So Ira and Sheldon get to write some big checks to the IRS. They have the consolation of having $537,228 more basis in their stock, to offset other income somewhere, somehow, someday.

Joe Kristan is a shareholder of Roth & Company, P.C. in Des Moines, Iowa, author of the Tax Update Blog and Going Concern contributor. You can see all of his posts for GC here.

State Governments, Seeking to Be Less Popular, Delay Tax Refunds

Taxpayers in Hawaii, Iowa, North Carolina, New York, and Rhode Island expecting a refund may have to exercise some patience, as these states have already declared their intentions to delay cutting those checks to its citizens. And don’t get to excited about receiving any interest on your already interest-free loan you gave them; many states have to withhold refunds for at least 60 days before interest has to be paid.

Pulling this type of a stunt will get you nowhere in a popularity contest but hell, they don’t really have much of a choice:

Scott D. Pattison, the executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said that it was “exceptionally unusual” for so many states to delay refunds, as they have throughout the current economic downturn.

“I think it’s just an indicator of how bad things have been,” Mr. Pattison said in an interview. “It’s politically, obviously, a problem. Also, I think from a policy standpoint, it’s a little hard to justify — this is the taxpayers’ overpayment that is due them.”

Obviously this is going to cause some tea-baggish belly aching but it is pointed out later in the article, if taxpayers really want to do something about this problem, they have the ability to make some changes themselves to avoid this in the future:

Verenda Smith, a spokeswoman for the Federation of Tax Administrators…said she hoped the troubles would prompt more taxpayers to file earlier; file electronically, which allows for much quicker processing time; and change their withholding status with their employers so they would not overpay so much. “You really shouldn’t give it to your state government as a no-interest loan, and then have to cool your heels while you wait to get it back,” she said.

We’ve mentioned this before but it bears repeating – adjusting your withholding to get a big refund is stupid. We’d say that the states keeping it out of your hands was probably a good thing but then again, the state can waste the money just as well.

Half a Dozen States Delay Tax Refunds [NYT]

Dylan McKay Won’t Be Able to Save Brenda Walsh From Her Tax Problem

Yesterday we may shared with you the unfortunate news about the dude from Reading Rainbow having a little tax problem which may have taken you back to the days of still whining about the lack of Cocoa Puffs in your house.

This time around celebrity tax problems take a little bit of a different path down memory lane (and a different theme song to get stuck in your head) to those days where your hormones were in control and the feeling of awkwardness was constant. For those of you too young to be familiar or give a rat’s ass about 90210, we’ll kindly enlighten you by stating unequivocally that Gossip Girl WOULD NOT EXIST without 90210.

Yes, Brenda Walsh, er, Shannen Doherty seems to have run across some tax trouble (just about $250k, NBD really) and as is our wont, we’ll present some possible solutions.


A) Another run at DWTS (nobody really gets it the first time).

B) 90210 movie – May we suggest that old wardrobe and hair styles be incorporated and that they should definitely go for the R rating? (seriously, how many times do you wish Dylan would have said “Fuck you Brandon, you momma’s boy” right in his smug face?)

C) Call ex-boyfriend Rick Salomon and see if he’s interested in making another movie.

D) Serious suggestions welcome.

‘Dancing’ star trips over tax bills [Tax Watchdog]

The Guy From Reading Rainbow Has a Small Tax Problem

A refresher:


If that doesn’t mean anything to you, he’s also the dude with the bizarro shades from Star Trek, The Next Generation.

But back to the RR for a sec – many of you would be an illiterate waste of space if it wasn’t for LeVar Burton, so the least you could do is pitch in so the man can pay the $34,000 he owes California. Or at least ask your parents to help out. It’s the least they can do since LB probably bought them some much-needed private time back in the day while you were zoning out on the shower in the toilet.

Tax resistance futile for Star Trek actor [Tax Watchdog]
See also (if you want the RR theme song stuck in your head):
LeVar Burton Owes $34,000 in State Taxes… “But Don’t Take My Word For It” [Tax Docket]

Doing Penance for John Edwards’ Sins: Provision Could Hit “Skilled” S Corp Owners

Long before John Edwards became known as a well-coiffed skirt-chasing weasel, he was a well-coiffed successful trial lawyer. He was successful enough to afford good tax advice, so he conducted his law practice in an S corporation.

Back in the old days, professional practices were conducted as sole proprietorships or general partnerships, reportable as self-employment income, subject to the 15.3% self-employment tax up to the FICA base (currently $106,800), and to the 2.9% Medicare portion of the tax to infinity.


When state laws allowed professionals to incorporate, attorneys and accountants quickly noticed that income on S corporation K-1s is not subject to self-employment tax. This makes S corporations a popular way to run a professional practice. The professionals take a “reasonable” salary out of the business (subject to employer and employee FICA and Medicare tax) – enough to not raise IRS eyebrows – and take the rest out as S corporation distributions with no employment tax.

John Edwards did well by this. His law practice generated millions dollars of K-1 earnings in excess of his salary, saving him hundreds of thousands of dollars in payroll and self-employment tax.

Now that he has been reduced to a wealthy target of mockery, Congress is ready to crack down on the John Edwards S corporation tax shelter. The annual “extenders” bill has a provision – almost as absurd as Edwards love life – that will hit professional S corporation K-1 income with self-employment tax. The SE tax will apply when the “principal asset” of the S corporation is the “reputation and skill” of three or fewer professionals – defined for this purpose as “services in the fields of health, law, lobbying, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, performing arts, consulting, athletics, investment advice or management, or brokerage services.”

Congress doesn’t muss its hair worrying about how taxpayers in multi-owner S corporations are supposed to figure out whether its “principal asset” is the “reputation and skill” of three or fewer owners. However it works, this provision is too late to hurt John Edwards — his reputation isn’t much of an asset anymore.

Joe Kristan is a shareholder of Roth & Company, P.C. in Des Moines, Iowa, author of the Tax Update Blog and Going Concern contributor. You can see all of his posts for GC here.

Nicolas Cage Must Not Have Heard About the Fiscal Crisis in California

We really thought we had heard the last of Nicolas Cage and his tax problems. The man has eight films at various points in production including the next editions of both the National Treasure and Ghost Rider franchises.

With that kind of cinematic lineup, you’d think the State of California would give him the thumbs up and say, “Oh, it’s cool Nic. Just cut us a check as soon as you have the cash. NO worries.”


Then we remembered that this is California, home to the budget projection experts that misfired on their tax revenues by $3 billion, so you bet your repossessed-mansion ass they’ll take that $3.8 mil.

National Treasure’ actor Nicolas Cage owes another $3.8 million [Tax Watchdog]

Lots of People in the South Have $0 Tax Liability

So those nonpayers you heard about throughout tax season? Proportionately, lots of them are in the south (don’t ask us why they used red/blue):


Purely by the numbers, California has the most with over six million taxpayers whose credits and deductions reduce their tax liability to zero. However, of the ten states that have the highest proportion of nonpayers, nine of them are in the south, including Texas and Florida, who have 4.2 and 3.4 million tax filers that had no tax liability respectively.

The total number of nonpayers in the south is approximately 13 million or 25% of the total 51 million, according tot he IRS’ data. So whatever the expression is that includes the combination of God loving the South and hating taxes, suddenly has more credence to it.

States Vary Widely in Number of Tax Filers with No Income Tax Liability [Tax Foundation]

New Mexico Didn’t Have Anyone That Could Tame the MacGruber Mullet

Tax credits for film productions may be the bane of Joe Kristan’s existence but that doesn’t mean they can’t be popular (Tax Policy blog reports that 44 states have them).

MacGruber was no exception, however the person in charge of the mane of hair on Will Forte’s head did not result in a “direct expenditure,” so that cost did not qualify for the “Movie Production Incentive.”


The Journal’s Speakeasy Blog learned that keeping a mullet in such pristine condition was not an easy task and apparently there wasn’t a single stylist in the Land of Enchantment qualified to handle it:

We made the movie in Albuquerque, so part of the [tax break] deal is that you’re supposed to use a largely New Mexican crew. But the [MacGruber] wig is an unruly little creation, so Betty Rogers, who’s the head of the hair department at SNL, came to make sure it was tamed every day. She is so good at what she does. So it was basically her and a bunch of great people from New Mexico.

Great people, maybe. Not so enchanting if they can’t handle a mullet.

‘MacGruber’: Star Will Forte on Wigs, Nudity and Tax Breaks [Speakeasy/WSJ]
‘MacGruber’ Talks Tax [Tax Docket]
Movie Production Incentives: Blockbuster Support for Lackluster Policy [Tax Foundation]