Since golf is a sport (?) that some of you engage in, you’ll be interested to know that Søren Hansen, the Danish linkster, may be going to jail for tax fraud.
He’s not banging everything that moves or shilling for an accounting firm, he just hates taxes. Just like you!
Hansen owes the Danes 9.6 million kroner which is about $1.75 million. That puts him a shade below Nas tax trouble.
Denmark is claiming that Hansen is a resident but he says that he kicks it in Monaco 24/7. Apparently he summers up in the motherland so this thing is a toss-up at best. If he’s found guilty of failing to pay the taxes he could wind up paying a fine of 10 million kroner and “an unspecified prison term”.
We don’t have any idea what a Danish prison would be like although we’re sure it’s rotten.
Free market Norseman Grover Norquist sent a letter to “Senators” today, urging them to vote against the cleverly titled Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act of 2011. And for anyone that has signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, let it be known that you’ll be in direct violation of said pledge if you also sign the CBOTLA2011. This means you can expect ATR hellfire – in the form of sternly-worded letters – to rain upon you. If you think they’re bullshiting, just ask Tom Coburn what happens with you mess with the (Viking) horns.
Voting for the Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act of 2011 is a violation of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Senate Democrats advocating for this legislation predicate their arguments on three false suppositions:
1. Taxing oil companies will bring down the price of gas
2. Washington needs more money
3. Oil and natural gas producers are the recipients of government subsidies
None of these presumptions are true.
Coinciding with the recent rise in gas prices were Democrat calls to raise taxes on America’s oil and natural gas producers—some of this country’s finest job creators. This line of reasoning is illogical. Raising the cost of producing crude oil will necessarily raise the price of gasoline.
As many Americans now understand, this country doesn’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Democrats are defaming oil and natural gas companies—with stunts like last week’s Senate Finance hearing—because they see these successful businesses as a way to fund a bloated federal government. President Obama’s Party has demonstrated no interest in seriously reducing spending.
So if you want to be associated with that, Senators (and I suspect The Gipper would be very disappointed), go ahead and sign CBOTLA2011. But you’re on notice.
Apparently there’s been a bit of unnecessary confusion out there about the deductibility of marijuana for medical purposes. The Wall St. Journal article that we linked to this morning discusses the problems employers are encountering wi e.g. can’t use HSA funds; they don’t care if you’ve got a card, if you test positive you’re fired).
But the question of deducting the cost of your White Widow et al. that you legally purchase in states like California and Colorado has been making the rounds. After a little discussion, it’s pretty clear that the IRS is not going allow you deduct your pot for tax purposes simply because it’s still illegal at the Federal level. Doctor’s note be damned.
The confusion arose due to the following letter that was sent to New York Senator Chuck Schumer, who had sent a letter to the IRS inquiring about a constituent using a “herb” to treat migraine headaches:
As with many facets of how to treat medical marijuana for tax and other purposes, it appears that those in charge are merely tiptoeing around the question. In the letter, the term “marijuana” is never used explicitly – the term used is “herb”. While it’s my understanding that the specifics of the case involved medical marijuana used for the treatment of migraines, that isn’t specifically stated in the sanitized version of the letter. No use of “marijuana”, just the term “herb.” That could be St. Johns Wort or milk thistle as far as the IRS is concerned.
Fortunately TaxProf Paul Caron clears up for us in a couple of updates from his latest post on this issue:
Update #2:Rev. Rul. 97-9, 1997-1 CB 77, specifically precludes a medical expense deduction for medical marijuana:
An amount paid to obtain a controlled substance (such as marijuana) for medical purposes, in violation of federal law, is not a deductible expense for medical care under § 213. This holding applies even if the state law requires a prescription of a physician to obtain and use the controlled substance and the taxpayer obtains a prescription.
So the IRS in Info. 2010-0080 either was (1) signalling a retreat from its position in Rev. Rul. 97-9 by not mentioning the federal legality of the substance; (2) implicitly referring only to legal herbs (and hence not covering marijuana).
Update #3: I am told by an enterprising reporter that the herb in question in Info. 2010-0080 is Petadolex, so it appears that interpretation #2 above controls and the conclusion in Rev. Rul. 97-9 denying a medical expense deduction for medicial marijuana still obtains.
So there you have it. Regardless if you have glaucoma, cancer, HIV, chronic pain, high anxiety or any ailment that marijuana can effectively alleviate, don’t bother trying to include it on Schedule A. We’d ask the IRS to implore a little common sense here but legally, as long as marijuana remains illegal at the federal level that’s not going to happen. And from a more practical standpoint, we’re still talking about the IRS.
Free market Norseman Grover Norquist sent a letter to “Senators” today, urging them to vote against the cleverly titled Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act of 2011. And for anyone that has signed the 