From The Boston Tax Institute
Lucien Gauthier has given me permission to reprint his e-mails to his customers. Here is the latest. In Larry Williams v. Comm., TCM 2015-76 (04/16/15), the Tax Court...
Heir Of Honduran Timber Fortune Wins Large Refund In Tax Court
The taxpayer win in this case is encouraging and you really have to wonder why the IRS pushed it so far. The actual intent of the passive activity loss rules was to kill traditional tax shelters. That is not what was going on there in any sense. The take-away from this case is that it would have been a really good idea for Mr. Lamas to have kept a contemporaneous log of his activities on behalf of Shoma. It is also worth noting that Jose Senior’s character building ownership structure of the businesses that he backed back-fired when it came to the passive activity loss rules, since it makes it impossible for someone to group all three as a single activity. You also have to wonder what Mr. Shoajee was thinking when he sent his follow-up letter to the IRS. Using the IRS as a weapon in a business dispute is, well, not good business.
Follow Me
Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one’s affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant.