Roger Russell

The Supreme Court’s recent DOMA decision raised a number of questions regarding its tax implications.

The Tax Code giveth and the Tax Code taketh away. The depreciation and expensing provisions in the Tax Code allow taxpayers to recover the cost of property through an annual allowance. As a result, many businesses have taken advantage of the opportunity to write off expenses of equipment and other tangible property by making purchases toward the end of the year, driven as much by the tax advantage it gives them as by the actual need for new equipment. But many of these business owners forget that when they sell an asset, the IRS can take their depreciation allowance back, often at the highest possible tax rate. Taxpayers use depreciation to write down the cost of assets, both tangible assets like capital equipment and real property, and intangible assets such as patent costs and goodwill. But if those assets are sold at a profit, the IRS can recapture the full amount that was depreciated.

With all the noise about Americans renouncing their citizenship and paying an exit tax just to be freed from what they consider an oppressive tax regime, it’s nice to know that it’s a two-way street.

Under some circumstances, the provision of services by a corporation to its shareholders is “property” within the meaning of Code Section 317(a), which can result in the IRS finding that there was a constructive dividend to the shareholder.

Among the many tax reform issues to be resolved in the months ahead is whether or not to produce a comprehensive tax reform bill or simply one limited to corporate reform.

Tax reform talk is heating up. Support is growing for bipartisan efforts to rewrite the tax code, with committee chairmen and ranking members in both the House and the Senate jumping aboard the effort.

Last week, one of the “girlie” cable channels had a weeklong Christmas-in-July event, where they showed Christmas movies the whole week. (In case you’re wondering, it’s my wife, not me, who watches this particular channel). But the thought occurred that if it’s time to start thinking about Christmas, then it’s also time to begin considering end-of-year tips and planning strategies to offer clients as we approach the beginning of fall.

Captive insurance companies, once the exotic plaything of large corporations, are now open and advantageous to much smaller companies. But most accountants don’t know enough about captive insurance companies to advise their business clients on the advantages of starting their own, according to Brian McCormick and Jerry Messick of Elevate Captives LLC.

There’s more to estate planning than simply trying to minimize taxes under the provisions of a will and various trusts, as criticism over the will of the late James Gandolfini attests. A number of estate experts have weighed in the provisions of the will, which was filed last week in Manhattan Surrogate’s Court.

The National Taxpayer Advocate submits two annual reports to the Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee each year.

The next time a client complains about the complexity of our tax system, tell them about the proposed financial transactions tax, or FTT. The European Union is moving close to agreeing on an FTT that at the beginning will apply to 11 member states, including France and Italy.

Practitioners who have clients with overseas accounts should alert them now that the FBAR (Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts Report) form must be received by the Department of Treasury no later than June 28 this year. Although the actual due date is June 30, this year it falls on a Sunday and there is no extension of the due date when it falls on a weekend.

While generally notices and other communications from the IRS are considered received by the taxpayer if they are delivered to the home by certified mail and signed for, such was not the case with a Letter 1153, received by and signed for by the taxpayer’s son but ultimately determined not to have made its final step on its journey from the IRS into the taxpayer’s hands.

If the number of congressional hearings on tax reform this year is an indication of the potential for passage, it seems possible that something may actually be in the works.

What do the Senate hearings on offshore profit shifting and a Supreme Court case decided on May 20, 2013 have in common? They both are generated by our system of taxing U.S. companies on their worldwide income, and they both are the result of the companies meeting their obligations to their shareholders, which is to legally minimize the amount of taxes they pay.

Despite other hearings being held in Washington this week of a more political nature, it’s nice to know that the Ways and Means Committee is continuing to search for ways to make life easier for small businesses, at least as far as complying with the Tax Code. A hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures on Wednesday, May 15, on the Ways and Means Small Business Tax Reform Discussion Draft.

There is sometimes a disconnect in the handling of dependency exemptions and related tax credits between what courts advise a taxpayer to do and what the Tax Code actually permits.

It’s become an annual rite of spring, at least for me—the release of Bloomberg BNA’s Survey of state tax departments. The survey, Bloomberg BNA’s 13th annual survey, asks questions aimed at clarifying each state’s position on the gray areas of corporate income and sales and use tax administration. Although nexus isn’t the only topic, it has been one of the main emphases of the survey.

It’s been kicking around in one form or another for the better part of a decade, but it looks as though it finally has some momentum.

It might be tempting for small business owners, and their advisors, to contemplate the higher tax rates on individuals spawned by the American Tax Relief Act, and conclude that switching their S corporation to a C corporation makes sense.