Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Hungarian Actresses Are Not Immune from Tax Troubles

Posted on by Caleb Newquist

zsazsa.jpgThe last thing you want if you’re a celebrity is money troubles. Whether you’re punching your shiesty accountant, simply spacing your tax liabilites, or just spending too much, it’s downright embarrassing. You’re a celebrity, for crissakes!
What’s worse if you’ve got money trubs because you lost scratch to Bernie Madoff. Sure if you’re Kevin Bacon, you can get by on the Footloose royalties but what about people who seem to be famous for no discernible reason? Unless being a “Hungarian actress” and “socialite” qualify as reasons.


Tax Girl has the details on Zsa Zsa Gabor’s trubs because of Berns:

The 92 year old actress has been liened by the Internal Revenue Service for $118,000 for the years 2001 and 2002; the lien has been filed against one of Gabor’s mansions in California. Gabor’s lawyer, Chris Fields, says that the tax bill is part of the fallout from the Madoff scheme.

Luckily for Zsa Zsa, her ninth husband, Frederic von Anhalt, whored out his own name: “Anhalt has reportedly received millions of dollars by selling the Anhalt name by adopting, along with Zsa Zsa, several men.” There’s no cause for concern, as he’ll be picking up the bill. Celebrity embarrassment has been avoided!
Why FvA gets paid to adopt his own wife and a bunch of dudes isn’t entirely clear. Annnnnd in case that’s not weird enough for you, TG points out that Fred also claimed to be the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. So now an asston of pharmaceuticals are likely relevant in some way. The awesomeness has reached a new level.
It’s a Tax Lien, Dahling [Tax Girl]

Related Posts

Tax Lady Roni Deutch Says She Had to Be ‘Dead or in a Mental Hospital’ for the California Bar to Help Her Clients

Now that Tax Lady Roni Deutch has been forced to abdicate her royal tax credentials due to pressure from the State Bar of California and the fact that she’s completely broke, one has to wonder, “what will happen to all those people that watched late-night TV and called TLRD for help?” That’s a good question! Roni would sure like to know, since the California Bar said she had to lose her marbles or be six feet under for them to help out. Based on the press conference from last week, she doesn’t seem to be dead (far from it, in fact) but committable? You be the judge:

[via DMWT]

Sex Change Expenses Are Deductible but You’re on Your Own for the C Cup

He seemed to have it all — a wife, three kids, a successful career. But it wasn’t enough. What he really wanted was another X chromosome. Our taxpayer, explains the Tax Court, “was uncomfortable in the male gender role from childhood and first wore women’s clothing secretly around age 10…discomfort regarding her gender intensified in adolescence…[The taxpayer] was a female trapped in a male body, and continued to secretly wear women’s clothing.”

So our taxpayer consulted a licensed social worker, which is apparently how these things are done, and after suitable counseling, decided to try on XX for size. The first steps down the path the the Misses Department seemed to suit the taxpayer, so he took the next big leap. $21,741 of surgical and related expenses later, the taxpayer was Ms. Rhiannon O’Donnabhain.


The Tax Court got involved when she deducted these expenses on her 2001 tax return. The IRS said that the expenses were not “medical” expenses under Sec. 219. It would be an unusual man who would undergo this sort of thing absent dire medical need: “The procedures that Dr. Meltzer carried out included surgical removal of the penis and testicles and creation of a vaginal space using genital skin and tissue.”

It took 139 pages and 4 separate opinions, but the Tax Court agreed that the gender reassignment surgery is a deductible medical expense. It’s surprising that it was so difficult, considering that the court is largely composed of men who wear dresses at work. But they felt it was necessary to go into the sort of privacy-killing detail that makes taxpayers think twice before spurning an appeals offer and going to Tax Court (oh, you mean you’re that Rhiannon O’Donnabhain!):

Petitioner, anticipating the formal recommendations for her surgery, went for a consultation and examination by Dr. Meltzer in June 2001 at his offices in Portland, Oregon. Dr. Meltzer concluded that petitioner was a good candidate for sex reassignment surgery. Dr. Meltzer’s notes of his physical examination of petitioner state: “Examination of her breasts reveal [sic] approximately B cup breasts with a very nice shape.”

Nice enough for government work, anyway. The Court ruled that while the hormone therapy, vaginoplasty, feminizing facial surgery and penis and testicle removal were deductible, breast augmentation was, well, too much:

given the contemporaneous documentation of the breasts’ apparent normalcy and the failure to adhere to the Benjamin standards’ requirement to document breast-engendered anxiety to justify the surgery, we find that petitioner’s breast augmentation surgery did not fall within the treatment protocol… Instead, the surgery merely improved her appearance.

So if the Tax Court’s view holds up on appeal, you can deduct the cost of changing sides, but if that’s not enough to make you sufficiently hot, you’re on your own.

Caring for A Sick Parent Is Not an Excuse for Filing a Tax Return Late, Especially if You’re a Tax Attorney

SO! We’ve been feeling sorry for the IRS lately because well, people HATE the Service. It’s cases like these that might, just might, cause some people to flip their lid.

Kevin Kilduff, one of the “most highly regarded” tax attorneys in Boston was suspended from practicing before the IRS for 48 months by Treasury Secretary’s Appellate Authority after he appealed an administrative law judge’s (“ALJ”) decision to suspend him for just 24 months. The complaint was filed by the Office of Professional Responsibility who oversees CPAs, EAs and attorneys who practice before the Service

From the decision of the ALJ, “The Complaint alleges Respondent failed to timely file Federal tax returns for the tax years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005, and failed to file a tax return for tax year 2002.”


Considering the fact that Mr Kilduff used to work at the IRS and since leaving has represented many clients before the Service, so you would expect he would have a good story.

Annnnnnd he did . Two-fold: 1) “[The] matter was instituted as a personal vendetta against him by Revenue Officer 1 because of his “zealous” representation of a client in dealing with Revenue Officer 1, the IRS agent in the case.” and 2) “his mother was diagnosed with Illness 1 and he quit his job in Philadelphia and moved to Boston and moved in with his parents to care for his mother, and remained with them for the next five years. During this period, he and his sister cared for their parents, cooking and taking them to doctor appointments”

Judge Joel Biblowitz, was sympathetic to Mr Kilduff’s situation (re: sick Mom) but was impressed with his attitude (emphasis original):

Throughout the course of this matter, I was struck by the Respondent’s apparent disinterest in, or lack of respect for, this proceeding…In his response, the Respondent stated: “I am happy to provide your office with copies of these tax returns if it is necessary,” although he did not do so. It appears to me that if he truly took the IRS’ complaint seriously, he would have responded immediately after receiving Whitlock’s October 11, 2006 letter and would have sent him a copy of his 2002 Federal tax return, rather than waiting almost four months before responding and offering to provide the return.

Mr Kilduff also didn’t respond to the Judge Biblowitz’s order to notify the OPR of his witnesses and exhibits in his case. Just plain ignored it. If we know anything about judges, it’s that you don’t ignore them.

I find that neither defense has merit. While I can sympathize with the Respondent and his obligations and sacrifices during this period, the record establishes that during the period encompassing tax years 2000 through 2005 he was employed full time for a major laws firm with yearly adjusted gross income ranging from $102,000 to $138,000. Further, while he had obligations caring for his parents during this period, it is difficult to imagine that he could not find the time to prepare and timely file these returns.

IRS Wins 48-Month Suspension of a Lawyer for Failing to File His Own Tax Return and Late Filing [IRS.gov]
Also see:
IRS Suspends One of Boston’s ‘Most Highly Regarded’ Tax Lawyers for 48 Months for Failing to File Tax Returns [TaxProf Blog]
Tax Attorney Suspended from Practicing Before IRS [Web CPA]