Related Posts
Lame Duck Tax Policy Prognostication
- Caleb Newquist
- November 4, 2010
From tax policy cynic Joe Kristan:
It’s unlikely that the lame ducks will accomplish much.
Jesus, that’s no way to start.
I expect an AMT patch to pass (though you should bet the other way if they offer points). I would bet against the extenders getting past the lame ducks, though it could happen. Action on the Bush tax cuts and the estate tax seems unlikely to me. It would require a triumphal GOP to work out a deal with a President whose response to disagreement so far has been to repeat himself slower and louder. The same dynamics bode poorly for the next Congress when it meets in January.
After such an ugly campaign, we wouldn’t put it past a bunch of losers (read: Democrats) to spite the entire country just because they couldn’t effectively communicate any accomplishments from the past two years. Of course, that’s us being cynical to a fault.
Thinking a little more practically, we agree with Joe on his AMT patch prediction. The rules are such a mess that it could stand a complete overhaul but we realize that’s nothing short of water into wine with less than two months left in 2010.
As far as the tax cuts are concerned, the shred of political capital that the members of Congress who will remain in DC have left simply cannot be lost. And besides, the President and Congress fundamentally agree on a major portion of the policy – that is, to extend tax cuts for the middle class. Again, this could be a pipe dream, but compromising on the extension of the cuts for the wealthiest Americans for two years seems like a simple solution (as bad of an idea as it is).
As for the estate tax – it’s toast. No one seems to give a shit about it except for Jon Kyl but once the first decrepit billionaire (who is unwilling to pull the plug on themselves) kicks the bucket in 2011, thus paying 55% tax on the estate, it will only take one phone call and Congress will spring into action.
Sigh. Place your bets.
Share this:
Indiana Department of Revenue Will Waffle on Whether It Wants Your Overdue Taxes If It Damn Well Pleases
- Caleb Newquist
- July 11, 2011
Taxes are difficult. Given. Even for the professionals that deal with them every day, it can be an exhausting mental exercise that will inevitably lead to mistakes. Example: Back in 2003, Indiana’s Department of Revenue (“DOR”) sent a $1.1 million refund to Aisin USA Manufacturing for its 2001 return. Aisin filed an amended return to show this refund only to have the DOR inform the company that a “clerical error” had been made and the company actually owed over $600k. Aisin wasn’t exactly thrilled with this and, citing the statute of limitations, told Indiana to drop dead. Surprisingly, this seemed to work:
The company then received a letter from DOR stating, “Your recent explanation and/or payment, with respect to the specific liability number referenced above, is satisfactory. No further action is required on your part for this liability.”
Then, not unlike the girlfriend who decides to change her outfit the moment you’re working out the door, the state took it back:
[I]n 2007 and 2008, the DOR notified Aisin that they actually did have to pay the disputed sum.
The state gave the company a break, cutting the amount due by about $70k but begrudgingly added, “Aisin’s continued wrongful retention of this amount d[id] not represent the action of a responsible corporate citizen.”
Long story, short – the DOR sued Aisin to get the taxes due in trial court because it hadn’t jumped through all the hoops necessary to submit the case in tax court. The Court of Appeals wasn’t impressed by this but ultimately the Indiana Supreme Court said everything was kosher and ruled in favor of the state and is now going back to Superior Court.
So, there are lots of lessons here. It appears that Indiana’s DOR can 1) make really bad mistakes; 2) decide those mistakes are NBD; 3) can change their minds and conclude that, mistakes or not, you owing them money is a BFD; 4) don’t feel the need to follow their own rules.
And they ultimately win the right to continue a battle over half a million bucks that has been going on for almost ten years. Seems about right.
Indiana Department of Revenue Rivals the Ministry of Silly Procedures in Tax Refund Case [Tax Foundation]
Zoeller v. Aisin USA Manufacturing, Inc. [Justia]
Share this:
Let’s Be Frank, the ‘Hot Dog Tax’ Didn’t Cut the Mustard
- Caleb Newquist
- July 23, 2013
What?! You never heard of the 'hot dog tax'? You need to ketchup! In reality, […]