Related Posts

Indiana Department of Revenue Will Waffle on Whether It Wants Your Overdue Taxes If It Damn Well Pleases

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]

Someone Is Curious About All Those KPMG Employees Working on General Electric’s Taxes

You may remember earlier this year when The New York Times broke a little story about General Electric’s tax savvy ways and the best tax law firm the universe had ever seen (aka the GE tax department).

The report�������������������� href=”http://www.goingconcern.com/2011/03/jon-stewart-reacts-to-ges-tax-savviness/”>a few people to get bent out of shape because the Times said GE was enjoying $14.2 billion in profit while “claim[ing] a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.” What that “benefit” really entailed was a mystery but many people jumped to the conclusion that it was a “refund” and ProPublica (possibly a little peeved that they got scooped) tried to set the record straight on the Times story.

Despite all the back and forth, everyone was pissed at GE. The company lost a Twitter joust with Henry Blodget and then a bogus press release went out claiming the company was returning the “refund” of $3.2 billion and the Associated Press ran it. Slightly awkward.

Francine McKenna also did a write-up on KPMG’s role in this little soap opera, as the firm has been the auditor for GE since Bill Taft was maxing out the White House bathtub.

The latest twist comes from a tip we received earlier about a “Preservation Notice” sent to all KPMG employees yesterday from the firm’s Office of General Counsel (“OGC”).

URGENT TARGETED PRESERVATION NOTICE: GENERAL ELECTRIC’S LOAN STAFF ARRANGEMENTS
Please be advised that until further notice from KPMG LLP’s (KPMG or firm) Office of General Counsel (OGC), you are hereby directed to take all steps necessary to preserve and protect any and all documents created or received from January 1, 2008 through the date of this Notice relating or referring to the loaning, assignment or secondment of tax or other professionals to General Electric Company and its direct and indirect subsidiaries, affiliates and divisions (collectively “General Electric’s Loan Staff Arrangements”).

As Klynvedlians know, these preservation notices come out so often that you barely even notice them. When you do notice them is when the partner in charge of your team informs you about it before it hits your inbox. What follows is basically the biggest CYA exercise you’ve ever seen. They roll in giant dumpsters and every last scrap of paper you’ve ever written on gets throw in and eventually it gets shipped off to OGC. Your life doesn’t really change all that much other than you’re not allowed to delete another email EVER. At least that’s how I remember it.

ANYWAY, this notice seems a little different. Why exactly? Here’s a excerpt from McKenna’s post:

In defiance of [Sarbanes-Oxley] provisions, KPMG – GE’s auditor – provides “loaned staff” or staff augmentation to GE’s tax department each year. These “temps” perform tasks that would be otherwise the responsibility of GE staff. Sources tell me KPMG employees working in GE tax have GE email addresses, are supervised by GE managers – there is no KPMG manager or partner on premises – and have access to GE employee facilities. They use GE computers because the software required for their tasks is GE proprietary software.

This type of “secondment” to an audit client is never allowed. KPMG should know better.

YEESH. So any documents going back to January of 2008 that relate or refer to someone being assigned under this allegedly dubious arrangement must be preserved. You don’t have to be John Veihmeyer to know that’s a METRIC ASSTON of documentation. It’s not that GE’s tax needs are seasonal; they’re more like “perpetual” or “infinity times infinity.” A company with the best tax law firm already in house that also has an arrangement with a their auditor to throw a few more people at the problem indicates that they are working on this shit 24/7. For KPMG, it amounts to a nice little revenue stream and it keeps lots tax staff busy throughout the year.

But what caused the notice? That’s the question. Our tipster speculated that the PCAOB and SEC might be up to something but per standard operating procedure, neither will confirm nor deny the existence of any investigation or inquiry. KPMG spokesman George Ledwith did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Like we stated previously, these preservation notices are a dime a dozen but because this one deals with General Electric and presumably their tax compliance it qualifies as outside the norm. If you’re in the know or know of someone in the know or have anything else to add, email us or comment below.